Temple's Duty to Protect Property Includes Restoring Traditions; Devotees Can Seek Mandamus: Madras High Court - 2025-12-02

Madras High Court Orders Resumption of Karthigai Deepam Lighting at Ancient Hilltop Pillar, Citing Temple's Duty to Protect Property

MADURAI: In a significant ruling blending religious tradition with property law, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple in Thirupparankundram to light the annual Karthigai Deepam at an ancient stone lamp pillar (Deepathoon) located on one of the hill's peaks. Justice G.R. Swaminathan held that performing the ritual is not merely a matter of custom but a legal duty of the temple management to assert and protect its property rights.

The court allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by devotees while dismissing one that sought to maintain the status quo. The verdict resolves a sensitive, long-standing dispute involving the historic Hindu temple and the Sikkandar Badhusah Dharga, which are situated on the same hill.

Background of the Dispute

The core issue revolved around the location for lighting the Karthigai Deepam, a festival of lights. For years, the temple has lit the lamp at a mandapam near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple, located halfway up the hill. However, several devotees, led by petitioner Rama Ravikumar, moved the High Court seeking a directive to light the lamp at the Deepathoon, a stone pillar on a lower peak of the hill, arguing it was an ancient Tamil tradition.

This plea was vehemently opposed by the temple's Executive Officer, the State, the Waqf Board, and the management of the Sikkandar Badhusah Dharga, which is located on the highest peak of the hill.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Stance: The petitioners contended that lighting the lamp atop the hill is an ancient Tamil tradition. More importantly, they argued it was a necessary act to assert the temple's ownership over the unoccupied portions of the hill, as conclusively settled by a 1923 civil court decree that was upheld by the Privy Council.

Respondents' Objections: The respondents raised several objections, including:

- Res Judicata: They argued that a similar plea was dismissed by the court in 2014.

- Locus Standi: They questioned the right of the devotees to file such petitions.

- Customary Practice: They maintained that the established custom for over a century was to light the lamp only near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple.

- Communal Harmony: They claimed that changing the practice could create communal tension and violate the Places of Worship Act.

Court's Rationale: A Fusion of Rights, Duty, and Tradition

Justice Swaminathan systematically addressed and dismissed the respondents' objections, framing the issue as a legal duty of the temple administration.

On Locus Standi and Res Judicata

The court affirmed that the petitioners, as devotees, were "persons having interest" under the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act and thus had the right to approach the court. It rejected the res judicata argument, clarifying that the 2014 case concerned lighting the lamp on the highest peak where the Dharga stands, whereas the current plea was for the Deepathoon on a lower peak, which historical court decrees had established as temple property.

A Legal Duty to Assert Ownership

The judgment's central thrust was that the temple management has a legal obligation to protect its properties. The court held that failing to perform symbolic acts of ownership could jeopardize the temple's rights over time.

> "It is not a matter of religious tradition alone. At least, for the sake of protecting its property, the temple management is obliged to light the festival lamp at the Deepathoon... Failure to maintain vigilance and that too eternally will lead to eventual loss of the right itself."

The court referenced a landmark 1923 judgment (O.S No.4 of 1920), which had declared the temple as the owner of the entire hill, except for the Dharga site, the steps leading to it, and the Nellithope area. Lighting the lamp at the Deepathoon, located in the temple's domain, was deemed a legitimate assertion of this judicially confirmed right.

The Thing Speaks for Itself (Res Ipsa Loquitor)

Justice Swaminathan invoked the legal maxim Res Ipsa Loquitor , stating that the very existence of a Deepathoon—a stone lamp pillar—implies its purpose.

> "A Deepathoon at this spot would not have been put up for aesthetic value. Obviously, it is not an ornament. It has an instrumental value and that is to facilitate lighting lamps on occasions such as this."

The court also noted that the temple management had recently covered the pillar, an act which ironically proved their control over it.

Final Directive

Finding that the temple management had failed in its duty, the court quashed the Executive Officer's order refusing permission. It directed the temple to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon in addition to the usual places, starting this year.

The court concluded that lighting a lamp, a sacred act, would not harm any community's sentiments, especially since the Deepathoon is located at a safe distance of over 50 meters from the Dharga. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, was directed to provide necessary security to ensure the order's compliance.