Senior Advocate S. Sriram argued before the Madras High Court that speculative fears cannot override fundamental religious rights. The case concerns the long-standing tradition of lighting Karthigai Deepam atop Thiruparankundram Hill.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Madras High Court on Wednesday continued hearing a batch of appeals challenging an earlier order that allowed the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon stone pillar atop Thiruparankundram Hill, with senior counsel strongly asserting that the dispute concerns constitutional worship rights rather than ownership claims.
A division bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan is examining appeals filed against a December 1 ruling of Justice G.R. Swaminathan, which had permitted the ritual to be performed at the hilltop location.
Appearing for devotee Paramasivam, Senior Advocate S. Sriram argued that the State had failed to substantiate its claim that allowing the ritual would disturb public order. He told the court that
“vague fears and unsubstantiated apprehensions could not justify restricting a citizen’s right to worship”.
Sriram maintained that the issue must be viewed not only through Article 25 of the Constitution but also under Article 19, as religious expression forms part of an individual’s freedom of expression. Denial of permission without concrete material, he argued, amounted to the State stepping away from its duty to protect fundamental rights.
Disputing the government’s position that there was no established custom of lighting the Deepam at the Deepathoon, Sriram submitted that the practice existed long before colonial-era litigation and was curtailed due to historical constraints rather than abandonment.
He pointed out that earlier court orders had already recognised the hill as temple property, with only narrow and clearly demarcated exceptions. According to him, these exceptions could not be stretched to justify control over the entire hilltop area.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Examines Order Allowing Karthigai Deepam At Thirupparankundram Hill
Sriram criticised the State for reframing the matter as a property dispute involving competing claims from multiple parties, including references to Jain and Waqf interests. In a writ petition asserting the right to worship, he said, the petitioner could not be compelled to respond to shifting ownership narratives.
He further alleged that the HR&CE Department had refused permission without justification, while the temple itself took no proactive stance in defending worship practices.
The senior counsel challenged claims that opposition to the Deepam lighting was motivated by concerns for harmony. Referring to past incidents, he said attempts had been made to alter the religious identity of the hill, including efforts that were previously halted by court orders.
He argued that seeking to block a limited ritual, performed by a small group for a single day, while citing peace, contradicted the principle of genuine coexistence.
On suggestions that the matter be referred for mediation, Sriram strongly objected, stating that mediation after rights had already been curtailed would be unfair. He said such a move would only complicate the matter rather than resolve it, especially when the petitioner sought nothing more than permission to perform a traditional religious act.
The counsel also questioned the legal standing of the Waqf Board in the dispute, pointing to statutory limitations applicable to protected monuments. While acknowledging the right of the dargah to be heard, he argued that broader institutional claims required closer scrutiny.
The bench noted that arguments on both sides appeared overstated but allowed Sriram to continue, including his submission that lighting the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon constitutes an essential religious practice.
Case Title:
The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramanian Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, Madurai vs. Rama Ravikumar and Others with connected matters
Read More Reports On Karthigai Deepam