Madras High Court has reserved its verdict in the ongoing Thiruparankundram Hill dispute, where Hindu devotees and the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah are at odds over lighting the Karthigai Deepam atop the hill. The decision could impact religious customs and temple rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a batch of appeals challenging a single-judge order that permitted Hindu devotees of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple to light the Karthigai Deepam at a stone pillar located on the lower of the two peaks of Thiruparankundram hill. The hill is also home to the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah, making the issue legally and communally sensitive.
A Division Bench comprising Justices G Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan reserved orders after hearing detailed rejoinder arguments from the Tamil Nadu government, represented by Advocate General P.S. Raman.
The appeals raise important constitutional and religious questions, including:
- Whether the stone pillar qualifies as a “Deepathoon” (lamp-bearing pillar) traditionally used by Hindus
- Whether lighting the Karthigai Deepam could infringe upon the rights of the nearby Muslim dargah
- Whether a writ court can restore a disputed religious practice without an inquiry under statutory law
Background
Earlier this month, Justice G.R. Swaminathan, sitting as a single judge, ruled that:
- The stone pillar is a Deepathoon
- The traditional practice of lighting Karthigai Deepam atop the hill should be restored
- Lighting the lamp would not affect the rights of the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah
The judge relied on a 1920s civil court judgment, which held that only parts of the hill belonged to the dargah, while other areas, including the location of the Deepathoon, belonged to the temple.
Advocate General P.S. Raman strongly contested the single-judge findings, stating that:
- There is no empirical or historical proof establishing the stone pillar as a Deepathoon
- The State has not formed any opinion on the origin or nature of the structure
- There is no established tradition of lighting Karthigai Deepam at the disputed site
“Can the writ court decide ‘what ought to be’? That is beyond the scope of Article 226,”
the AG argued.
He further submitted that the only appropriate remedy lies under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act, which empowers authorities to determine the existence of religious customs after inquiry.
The AG also questioned the single judge’s approach of touching upon property rights in a case primarily involving customary religious practices, noting that temple ownership had already been adjudicated earlier.
“Creating a new custom to protect property may not be the correct approach,”
he said.
Despite the single-judge order, State authorities reportedly prevented devotees from ascending the hill to light the lamp, citing public order and safety concerns. As a result, the Karthigai Deepam festival passed without the hilltop lamp being lit.
This led to a contempt of court petition, which is currently pending before Justice Swaminathan.
Appeals against the single-judge order were filed by:
- Tamil Nadu State authorities
- Madurai district administration and police
- Tamil Nadu Waqf Board
- Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah
During hearings, some counsels went so far as to argue that calling the stone pillar a Deepathoon was a product of judicial imagination.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Examines Order Allowing Karthigai Deepam At Thirupparankundram Hill
The Waqf Board and the State suggested mediation as a possible solution, but Hindu devotees strongly opposed it, arguing that such mechanisms historically resulted in Hindu rights being diluted in the name of coexistence.
Senior advocates representing Hindu devotees countered the State’s submissions:
- S. Sriram argued that HR&CE authorities had already expressed their views through court pleadings
- P. Valliappan questioned how a secular government could remain neutral while opposing a religious practice, adding that lamp-lighting exists even in Sufi traditions
- Palanivel Rajan emphasized that Deepathoons are historically well-recognized structures
Meanwhile, counsel for the dargah maintained that the burden of proof lies on Hindu petitioners, and such proof should not be evaluated in writ proceedings.
Verdict Reserved
After extensive arguments spanning several days, the Division Bench reserved its verdict, bringing a temporary pause to a case that has reignited debate over religious customs, shared sacred spaces, and the limits of judicial intervention.
The verdict is expected to have crucial implications for religious rights, administrative authority, and communal harmony in Tamil Nadu.
Read More Reports On Karthigai Deepam