Today, On 6th January, In the Karthigai Deepam Row, Madras High Court slams the State and upholds the single-judge order, stressing that fears of public disorder were only an imaginary ghost, wrongly fostering mistrust and unnecessary tension between communities.
The Madras High Court affirmed a single-judge’s decision allowing the lighting of a Karthigai Deepam at a stone pillar located on the lower of two peaks atop the Thiruparankundram hillock, which accommodates both the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy temple and the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah.
A bench comprising Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan found it ridiculous and hard to fathom the state’s concern that lighting this lamp by the temple management on temple property might disturb public peace, unless such disturbances are instigated by the state itself.
The court also criticized the mischievous claim made by some individuals that the stone pillar belongs to the dargah.
It stated that the traditional practice of lighting a lamp in elevated places is meant for all Hindu devotees to observe.
Therefore, there was no reasonable justification for the temple management to deny the request of devotees to light the lamp.
The bench asserted that the state’s fears of potential public order disturbances if the lamp were lit were merely an imaginary ghost created for convenience, fostering mistrust between communities.
In its decision, the court mandated that the temple management must light the lamp at the designated stone pillar, referred to as the Deepathoon. This ruling indicates the division bench has dismissed the state’s concerns regarding the classification of the stone pillar as a Deepathoon.
The court clarified that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) could implement conditions to protect the monument situated on the hill.
It also instructed that the public should not accompany temple management when lighting the lamp at the Deepathoon. The district collector was tasked with overseeing and coordinating the event.
Furthermore, the court mentioned that the guidelines issued in its detailed judgment would facilitate both Hindu and Muslim communities to celebrate their festivals at the hillock harmoniously.
The bench elaborated after announcing the judgment,
“We want a peaceful coexistence of both the parties. That can be done if there is some kind of understanding and uniformity. Please go through the order … We say Constitution, natural resources, is common to all. Everyone should have freedom of religion without disturbing the other,”
This verdict came in response to appeals challenging Justice GR Swaminathan’s previous ruling, which had allowed some temple devotees to petition for lighting a Karthigai Deepam at a stone pillar atop the hill.
Justice Swaminathan had determined that the stone pillar functioned as a Deepathoon (a structure meant for lamps) and stressed the importance of restoring the tradition of lighting the Karthigai Deepam atop the hill, in addition to the existing practice at the Ucchi Pillayar temple.
He reasoned that such a custom would not interfere with the rights of the nearby Muslim shrine. According to his findings, based on a civil court ruling from the 1920s, only certain areas of the hill were owned by the dargah, while the rest, including the location of the Deepathoon, belonged to the temple.
However, authorities in Madurai reportedly obstructed the devotees’ attempt to light the lamp at the stone pillar, citing concerns over public order. Consequently, the Karthigai Deepam festival of 2025 passed without the lamp being lit atop the hill.
This led to a pending contempt of court case before Justice Swaminathan. Meanwhile, state authorities (including the Madurai magistrate and police commissioner), the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, and the dargah filed appeals contesting Justice Swaminathan’s directives.
Among other arguments, counsel for the authorities contended that there was no foundation for designating the stone pillar as a Deepathoon.
Advocate General PS Raman further asserted there was insufficient evidence to support the tradition of lighting the pillar for Karthigai Deepam. He challenged whether Justice Swaminathan had the authority to order the revival of a practice that was not typically observed in Thiruparankundram.
He maintained that the appropriate course of action would be for the Hindu devotees to submit a representation under Section 63 of the Hindu Rights and Charitable Endowments Act (HR&CE Act) for an inquiry, allowing for an examination of any established religious usage.
However, the Hindu devotees expressed strong reservations about this approach, arguing that mediation could protract the matter unreasonably.
They asserted that in previous instances, it was the Hindu side that had to compromise and relinquish their rights during such alternative dispute mechanisms, like peace meetings.
They contended that the state’s notion of coexistence often came at the expense of Hindu rights.
Read More Reports On Karthigai Deepam