Dargah Challenges Lamp Lighting Order in Madras HC Over Minority Land Rights

In a heated legal battle unfolding at the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), the Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah has urged the court to intervene in a long-standing dispute over the lighting of a traditional lamp (Karthigai Deepam) at a stone pillar (Deepathoon) atop the Thiruparankundram Hills. The Dargah management contends that a single judge's order permitting the ritual infringes on their historical land rights, granted as far back as 1920, and exacerbates difficulties faced by the minority Muslim community in peacefully enjoying their property. The division bench, comprising Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan, heard extensive arguments on December 15, 2025, in a batch of appeals challenging the directive, with the matter adjourned for further hearing on December 16.

This case highlights the delicate interplay between religious customs, property rights, and procedural justice in India's multi-faith landscape. As counsel for the Dargah invoked precedents on minority protections and expert opinions, the proceedings underscore broader tensions in managing shared sacred spaces, particularly in Tamil Nadu's temple-dominated regions.

Background: A Clash of Traditions on Sacred Hills

The Thiruparankundram Hills, located near Madurai, are a revered site encompassing both the ancient Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple—a significant Hindu pilgrimage center dedicated to Lord Murugan—and the Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah, a Sufi shrine established in the early 20th century. The hills' multicultural significance dates back centuries, with historical records showing coexistence of Hindu and Muslim practices.

The immediate flashpoint revolves around a stone pillar, referred to as the Deepathoon, situated on the hills. Devotees of the temple seek to light the Karthigai Deepam—a festival of lights celebrated with fervor during the Tamil month of Karthigai (November-December)—at this pillar, claiming it as part of an age-old custom. However, the Dargah argues that the pillar falls within or perilously close to their campus, and such activity would disrupt access, crowd pathways, and encroach on their proprietary rights.

The dispute escalated when a single judge of the Madras High Court, in an order dated December 9, 2025, directed temple authorities to proceed with the lighting, ruling that the Deepathoon was not on Muslim-owned land and that the ritual would not impinge on minority rights. The judge also quashed prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the CrPC imposed by state authorities to prevent potential unrest and initiated contempt proceedings against officials for non-compliance, even impleading high-ranking figures like the Chief Secretary and ADGP.

Appeals followed swiftly: the Dargah management, the Tamil Nadu government, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, and other stakeholders challenged the order. A separate contempt appeal against the December 4 ruling was also listed, amplifying the procedural complexities.

Senior Advocate T Mohan, representing the Dargah, painted a picture of systemic marginalization. "The minority community was facing difficulty in enjoying their land given to them in 1920," Mohan submitted, referencing prior judicial restrictions from the "animal sacrifice judgment" that barred infrastructure like toilets and water supply on Dargah land to avoid impacting temple footfall. He warned that crowds from the lamp lighting could "occupy the pathway leading up to the Dargah," turning every defense of their rights into a protracted battle.

Key Arguments: Procedural Lapses and Substantive Rights

The hearing on December 15 delved into a multifaceted critique of the single judge's approach, blending procedural objections with substantive claims on religious harmony and land tenure.

Procedural Unfairness and Hasty Adjudication

Mohan led the charge on procedural grounds, arguing that the Dargah was impleaded late without adequate opportunity to respond. Under Madras High Court writ rules, respondents are entitled to eight weeks for a counter-affidavit, yet the single judge compressed this to just three days. "The learned judge thought it fit to restrict it to three days," Mohan protested, emphasizing that such fast-tracking violated natural justice principles. He recounted being "cut off from the video conferencing facility" mid-objection on the petition's maintainability and noted the Dargah's exclusion from the judge's site visit, which issued an open invitation to parties.

The bench, while orally observing it was "not concerned with procedural issues," assured Mohan that "all those aspects would be considered." Yet, Mohan persisted, citing that "even procedural unfairness can vitiate the order," and urged scrutiny of whether the single judge's reliance on others' pleadings to bolster the petitioner's poorly worded case amounted to post facto justification.

Another Dargah counsel highlighted factual errors, such as the judge's assertion that the Deepathoon was outside the "Dargah campus." "The entire premise is Dargah campus," the counsel argued, questioning the ambiguous use of "campus" and insisting that title disputes demand civil court adjudication with 90 days for counters, expert commissions, and evidence. The bench countered that a judge's local inspection is permissible but acknowledged the need for balanced fact-finding.

Substantive Claims: Minority Rights and Customary Practices

On merits, Mohan invoked Supreme Court precedents emphasizing expert opinions in religious matters, alleging the single judge ignored them. He decried the creation of a "new case" not in pleadings—namely, that the Dargah sought to "take over" the site—and stressed the need for "real, tangible interest" over "sentimental" ones. "There should be a real, tangible interest. Not sentimental interest. Then all the Hindus of Tamil Nadu can file a case saying they're interested in Ayodhya. Where will it stop?" Mohan rhetorically asked, advocating boundaries to prevent court flooding.

He took umbrage at the judge's remark attributing opposition to "vested interests," revealing the petitioner's undisclosed ties to Hindu Makkal Katchi via his Twitter handle. "There are some third parties who want to stir the pot," Mohan said, noting Madurai's history of communal harmony and urging that customs be proven in civil courts, not writ jurisdiction. "When it comes to my custom, I've to go to the civil court. But when they assert a custom, the writ court gives directions."

Representing parties opposing the lighting, Senior Advocate AK Sriram argued the single judge bypassed the temple's Executive Officer's order and trust board's stance without impleading them, rendering it legally infirm. He cited 2013 opinions from four Sthanikars (temple experts) affirming the lamp's traditional lighting at the Uchi Pillaiyar temple, compliant with Agamas (temple scriptures). Sriram invoked Supreme Court rulings mandating deference to experts in ritual matters.

Senior Advocate N Jothi, for the HR&CE Joint Commissioner, delved into historical evidence, referencing a 1981 archaeology book and scholar Venkataswami's work. These sources described the pillars as unfinished structures used by Digambara saints for nighttime lighting during congregations, not for Karthigai Deepam. "These pillars were not for Karthigai Deepam but for light by the Munis," Jothi explained, cautioning against altering their nature under the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act. He quipped, "Murugan may have two wives but light should be lit at one place only," underscoring that the ritual is site-specific.

Jothi also flagged the petitioners' rapid filing—representation at 2:15 PM followed by a writ petition the same day—alleging it caused "commotion and gave nightmares to officers." He demanded heavy costs, payable to "Murugan itself."

The State HR&CE, via Senior Advocate R Shunmugasundaram, informed the court that the Commissioner was open to considering devotee representations, while affirming the elected trust board's functionality under Section 4 of the Act.

Court Observations: Seeking Amicable Resolution

The bench adopted a solution-oriented tone, orally probing: "15 meters away from that place anywhere in the hillock, if some activity of the temple is to be carried out, you have no objection?" The Dargah counsel clarified no existing ritual justified it, insisting on civil dialogue over writ impositions. Referencing a 1996 judgment mandating 15-meter buffers, the court suggested demarcation to curb recurring litigations: "We want to arrive at a solution because several incidents are happening, several litigations. First you demarcate, once it's demarcated..."

On ASI notifications permitting the ritual, the bench queried compliance with law, with counsel affirming it must align with statutes. Describing Thiruparankundram as a "multi-cultural complex," the court emphasized balancing rights without favoritism.

Legal Implications: Navigating Minority Protections and Religious Autonomy

This dispute implicates core constitutional provisions under Articles 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (religious denominations' rights to manage affairs), and 30 (minority educational/cultural rights), alongside property laws like the Transfer of Property Act. The Dargah's invocation of the 1920 grant raises questions of inalienable waqf-like rights, protected under Muslim personal law and precedents like the animal sacrifice case, which prioritized harmony without diluting minority entitlements.

Procedurally, the case spotlights writ jurisdiction limits: High Courts must avoid mini-trials, defer to civil forums for title disputes, and ensure natural justice, as per Supreme Court rulings in Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India (on expert deference) and Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (on fair hearings). The single judge's site visit, while permissible under Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC, cannot substitute evidence, potentially inviting appeals under Article 227.

For legal practitioners, this underscores the need for robust pleadings in religious PILs—avoiding "sentimental interests" and proving customs via affidavits or experts. It also highlights HR&CE's secular role in managing diverse sects (e.g., Vaishnavites, Thenkalai, Vadakalai), as argued by Jothi.

Broader Impact: Harmony in Shared Spaces

The Thiruparankundram row mirrors national tensions, from Ayodhya to Sabarimala, where religious assertions clash with neighbor rights. If upheld, the single judge's order could embolden similar claims, straining minority enclaves. Conversely, Dargah's success might reinforce buffers in multi-faith sites, promoting dialogue per the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

As the bench adjourns for December 16, stakeholders await demarcation or civil referral. In Madurai's harmonious backdrop, this litigation tests whether courts can illuminate paths to coexistence without extinguishing traditions.

(Word count: 1,248)