Madras High Court Upholds Lighting of Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram Hilltop Deepathoon, Rejects Survey Stone Claims

Introduction

In a landmark ruling emphasizing the protection of religious customs and fundamental rights, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on January 6, 2026, upheld a single judge's order directing the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple administration at Thiruparankundram to light the Karthigai Deepam at the ancient stone pillar known as Deepathoon atop the hill, in addition to traditional sites. The Division Bench, comprising Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Mr. Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, dismissed a batch of 20 writ appeals filed by the temple's Executive Officer, the Tamil Nadu government, the HR&CE Department, the Madurai District Collector, the City Police Commissioner, the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, and representatives of the Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah. The court rejected arguments portraying the pillar as a British-era survey stone or a Jain relic, affirming it as a legitimate lamp post within temple property. This decision, rendered in The Executive Officer v. Rama Ravikumar and Others , invokes Articles 25 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution to safeguard worshippers' rights, while cautioning against state-sponsored disruptions to communal harmony. The ruling stems from petitions by devotees like Rama Ravikumar, a Hindu Tamil Party leader, seeking to revive what they claim is an ancient practice visible to surrounding villages, amid ongoing interfaith tensions on the shared sacred hill.

Case Background

Thiruparankundram Hill, rising 1,050 feet in Madurai, is a revered site in Tamil Nadu's religious landscape, recognized as one of the six abodes (Arupadai Veedu) of Lord Murugan. The hill hosts the ancient cave temple of Arulmigu Subramania Swamy at its base, dating to the Pandya era (6th-9th centuries CE), alongside Jain rock-cut caves with Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions from the 2nd century BCE, and the 13th-century Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah at the summit. This multi-faith heritage has long symbolized syncretism but also sparked disputes over access and rituals.

The controversy traces back to a 1920 civil suit (O.S. No. 4 of 1920), where the temple claimed ownership of the entire hill. The Subordinate Court, Madurai, declared most of the hill—including unoccupied lands, shrines, and paths—as temple property, while granting the dargah limited rights to its mosque, flagstaff, and Nellithope area (about 33 cents). This was upheld by the Privy Council in 1931 (AIR 1931 PC 212), affirming the hill's sacred status as "Swamimalai" or "God's Hill," integral to temple rituals like Giri Pradakshina.

Post-independence, disputes persisted. In 1994, a writ petition (W.P. No. 18884 of 1994) arose when Hindu Munnani sought to light the Deepam atop the hill near the dargah. Justice J. Kanakaraj directed lighting at the traditional Uchipillaiyar site but granted liberty to devotees to request alternative spots on temple land, at least 15 meters from dargah property, subject to HR&CE approval. Similar pleas in 2014 (W.P.(MD) Nos. 19371 and 19422 of 2014) were dismissed, citing law-and-order concerns and lack of established custom at specific spots like Kuthirai Sunai.

The present case originated from petitions filed in late 2025 by devotees including Rama Ravikumar, M. Arasupandi, S. Paramasivam, and A. Karthikeyan, invoking the 1994 liberty to demand lighting the Karthigai Deepam (November-December full moon festival symbolizing light over darkness) at Deepathoon—a carved stone pillar on a lower summit. They argued it restores an ancient vantage-point custom for visibility to foothill devotees, compliant with Agama Shastra. The single judge (Justice G.R. Swaminathan) on December 1, 2025, allowed the petitions, directing the temple to light the lamp at Deepathoon alongside traditional sites, deeming it essential for asserting temple rights under the 1920 decree.

Appeals followed from temple officials, state authorities (citing Agama violations and unrest risks), dargah trustees (claiming proximity threats), and the Waqf Board (asserting ownership). The Bench reserved judgment on December 18, 2025, after extensive hearings, impleading the ASI due to the hill's protected status under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

Arguments Presented

The appellants mounted a multi-pronged challenge. The state, via Advocate General P.S. Raman, argued the petitions bypassed efficacious remedies under Sections 28 and 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959, which vests trustees with authority over customs, appealable to the Joint Commissioner. They claimed no historical evidence of Deepathoon use as a Hindu lamp post, portraying it as a British survey marker (citing 1879 Great Trigonometrical Survey records) or Jain relic for monastic gatherings. Lighting there allegedly violates Agama Shastra (requiring alignment with the sanctum sanctorum) and risks communal discord near the dargah, justifying Section 144 CrPC prohibitions. The HR&CE Department (via R. Shunmugasundaram) echoed that the Executive Officer lacks unilateral power; decisions rest with the Board of Trustees, and prior rejections (e.g., 2014 writs) bar relitigation under res judicata.

Temple officials and police (via Vikas Singh and T.V. Masilamani) contended devotees lack locus to dictate rituals, emphasizing safety at the narrow hilltop (accommodating <50 people) and historical interdictions (1862, 1912). Dargah representatives (T. Mohan and G. Prabhu Rajadurai) invoked the 1920 decree, claiming Deepathoon falls within "dargah adjuncts" on the summit, un-demarcated without survey. They accused procedural bias, including the single judge's un-notified site visit and rushed judgment without full counters. The Waqf Board (Abdul Mubeen) asserted post-2025 amendment oversight, labeling the pillar waqf property.

Respondents/devotees (via P. Valliappan, Guru Krishna Kumar, and S. Sriram) countered that Deepathoon's carvings (bowl top, wick niches) distinguish it from plain survey marks, aligning with temple property per the Privy Council. They invoked the 1994 liberty as unfulfilled due to state inaction, arguing lighting restores visibility custom (per Thirumoolar's Thirumandiram , equating light to Shiva) without Agama breach—citing precedents like Thiruvannamalai's hilltop Maha Deepam. Fundamental rights under Articles 25 (practice religion), 19(1)(a) (expression via festival), and 29(1) (cultural conservation) override invented fears of unrest, deemed "imaginary ghosts" fostering mistrust. They dismissed res judicata, as prior cases addressed different sites (e.g., Kuthirai Sunai), and HR&CE remedies futile given departmental bias.

Legal Analysis

The Bench meticulously dissected the dispute through historical, constitutional, and statutory lenses, affirming the single judge's order while clarifying safeguards. Central to the ruling was the 1931 Privy Council precedent ( Re Madura, Tiruparankundram Devasthanam v. Alikhan Sahib , AIR 1931 PC 212), which upheld temple ownership of unoccupied hill portions "from time immemorial," treating the hill as a sacred lingam. This negated dargah/Waqf claims over Deepathoon, located on a lower summit beyond Nellithope (demarcated at 33 cents in 1962 execution proceedings).

Rejecting the survey stone theory, the court compared Deepathoon's ornate features (carved ends, bowl top) against 1879 Survey records describing plain rock engravings or simple markers, deeming private appellants' campaign "calculated." Alternative claims (Jain relic or unknown granite) lacked evidence; temple screening of the pillar evidenced control.

On Agama Shastra, appellants produced no textual prohibition against hilltop lighting (e.g., Pancharatra Agamas permit elevated flames for visibility). The court distinguished essential (core worship) from non-essential practices, citing Shirur Mutt (1954 SCR 1005) and Sabarimala (2018) 10 SCC 1, holding visibility custom (personifying Shiva as light per Thirumandiram ) protected under Article 25(1). Present Uchipillaiyar lighting was deemed a post-19th-century compromise, not ancient tradition.

Constitutionally, restrictions on worship demand strict scrutiny ( Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala , 1986 (3) SCC 615). State fears of unrest were "ridiculous," potentially "sponsored by the State" for political ends, violating neutrality under Article 14. The 1994 order ( W.P. No. 18884/1994 ) mandated considering devotee requests, unheeded due to bias—HR&CE predetermining against change lost custodial credibility ( State of Tamil Nadu v. Sivarasan , 2013 (2) LW 1).

Precedents like Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 2 SCC 11 reinforced trustees' duties under HR&CE Act Section 28(1) align with usage, but writs entertainable for rights enforcement absent efficacy (e.g., departmental collusion). The hill's ASI protection (172 acres notified 1908/1923) bars unregulated acts (Rule 8, AMASR Rules 1959), but lamp lighting complies if supervised.

Distinguishing quashing (e.g., FIRs under CrPC 482) from mandamus here restored equity without inventing customs—merely enforcing 1994 liberty against state inaction.

Key Observations

The judgment opens evocatively: "God said, ‘Let there be light’, and there was light." (Genesis 1:3), symbolizing creation and hope, framing the dispute as one of faith over administration.

On state apprehensions: "It is ridiculous and hard to believe that the mighty State fears that permitting representatives of the Devasthanam to light a lamp on one day in a year would disturb public peace... Such disturbance can happen only if it is sponsored by the State itself. We pray no State should stoop to that level to achieve its political agenda."

Rejecting the survey stone claim: "The kind of mark stones at hill stations is vividly described... On comparing the said description of mark stones and the picture of the subject pillar... it apparently carries distinct features with carvings on either end in addition a bowl shape on the top. This eliminates the calculated campaign... that the pillar is only a mark stone left behind by the survey department of British Raj."

On Agama compliance: "Lighting deepam outside the Temple on one of the peaks in the hill is not in violation of any ‘Agama Shastra’. It is well settled... that the essential practices and non-essential practices for a religion has to be considered, when faith and belief of worshippers is involved."

Affirming rights: "When there is a custom of lighting lamp at the elevated place available and a place is available within the limits of Devasthanam property, there is no plausible reason for the Devasthanam to refuse to comply with the wishes of its devotees, when such a request is not against morality or public policy."

The court lamented state bias: "The Government has no inclination to restore or resume the old tradition... instead taking sides and pre-closing options, leading to a loss of credibility as custodians of temple affairs."

Court's Decision

The Division Bench categorically upheld the single judge's December 1, 2025, order, directing the temple Devasthanam to light the Karthigai Deepam annually at Deepathoon alongside traditional sites like Uchipillaiyar. No public accompaniment is permitted; a limited Devasthanam team (size consulted with ASI and police) will perform the ritual, supervised by the Madurai District Collector. Activities must comply with the AMASR Act, 1958, with ASI imposing preservation conditions. The 15-meter buffer from dargah property is advisory for safety, not absolute.

This ruling restores a visibility-enhancing custom, reinforcing temple possessory rights per the 1931 Privy Council decree and 1994 liberty, while mandating harmony. Practically, it curbs state overreach in religious matters, potentially easing interfaith tensions if implemented collaboratively—dargah trustees could participate symbolically. Future cases may cite it for stricter scrutiny of "public order" curbs on worship, limiting executive discretion in temple administration and promoting cultural conservation under Article 29(1). Politically, it drew DMK criticism (vowing Supreme Court appeal for lacking precedent) versus BJP praise (exposing "anti-Hindu" bias), underscoring electoral stakes akin to Kerala's Sabarimala row. As News18 reported, the verdict rebukes the DMK's "meaningless stance," urging unity over division on this syncretic hill.