Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.JAYACHANDRAN, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramanian Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, Madurai – Appellant
Versus
Rama.Ravikumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the case stems from a long-standing religious dispute over lighting a lamp. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented indicated the complexity of the relationship between the communities involved. (Para 6 , 16) |
| 3. legal precedents shape the current context and actions regarding religious customs. (Para 8 , 15 , 41) |
| 4. the initial judgment was about restoring a practice rather than creating a new custom. (Para 93 , 113 , 136) |
| 5. the court recognizes the right to alter religious practices as per established laws. (Para 108 , 142) |
JUDGMENT :
G. JAYACHANDRAN,K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Introduction:
“God said Let there be light and there was light”
It is the famous biblical phrase from Genesis 1:3 where God speaks light into existence, symbolizing creation, hope, and divine power.
2.The controversy under consideration is the judgement of the High Court Bench of Single Judge, which directed the Executive Officer of the Thiruparangundram Devasthanam to lit lamp at the stone lamp pillar in the hill on the full moon evening of the Tamil Karthigai month. The State represented by the District Collector and Superintendent of Police apprehends that the implementation of this order will creat
The court affirmed the right to light Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon, emphasizing communal harmony and overriding state concerns over public order, based on established customary practices.
The temple management has a statutory duty to light the Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon, confirming their rights over the site and the protection of religious customs as defined in prior judgments.
State officials must comply with judicial orders related to the right of worship, or face contempt proceedings.
Parties in religious disputes can assert rights based on historical practices and public endowment; possession can confer title through adverse possession.
The court ruled that the Udayasthamana Pooja's status as a religious practice must be established in civil court, and the Managing Committee's decisions regarding rituals are not subject to judicial ....
Point of Law : Section 31A of Act deals with formation of Temple Advisory Committees.
The High Court refrained from granting any declaration as to who is the actual person who has a right to exercise the shebait rights or any other right relatable to the temple. The Court left open th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
