The Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench on Tuesday upheld a single judge’s order permitting the lighting of a ceremonial lamp on the ‘Deepathoon’ (lamp pillar) atop the Thirupparankundram hill shrine in Madurai, bringing judicial clarity to a dispute that had triggered administrative resistance and heightened public debate in recent months. The ruling cleared the way for the continuation of the ritual during the Tamil Karthigai Deepam festival, while simultaneously laying down safeguards to ensure heritage protection and public order.

A division bench comprising Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan dismissed appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu government and district authorities, affirming the December 1 order of single judge Justice G.R. Swaminathan. The single judge had directed that the traditional lamp be lit atop the hill, holding that the state had failed to establish any legal or historical basis to prohibit the practice.

Court Rejects State’s Apprehensions

In its judgment, the division bench took strong exception to the state’s argument that permitting the ritual could disturb law and order. The court described such fears as speculative and unfounded, observing that the administration appeared to have imagined a threat rather than responding to any concrete evidence.

The bench remarked that instead of viewing the occasion as an opportunity to encourage communal harmony at a site long associated with peaceful coexistence of faiths, the state had allowed apprehensions to dominate its approach. The court noted that law and order concerns cannot be invoked mechanically to curb religious practices, especially when there is no material to show an imminent threat.

“The fear expressed by the State is neither supported by past incidents nor by any empirical data,” the bench observed, adding that a constitutional government must facilitate lawful religious practices rather than obstruct them on hypothetical grounds.

Protected Monument, Regulated Practice

While allowing the ritual, the High Court also emphasised that Thirupparankundram hill is a protected monument, and any activity carried out there must strictly adhere to statutory provisions governing heritage sites. The bench clarified that the lighting of the lamp would be subject to regulatory oversight and that the number of persons permitted to participate must be determined through consultation between the temple administration, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and local police authorities.

This clarification, the court said, strikes a balance between preserving ancient religious practices and safeguarding the historical and archaeological significance of the site.

Background of the Dispute

The controversy centres around the lighting of Karthigai Deepam on a stone pillar, referred to by devotees as the ‘Deepathoon’, located at the summit of the Thirupparankundram hill. Devotees of Lord Muruga have long regarded the ritual as part of Tamil religious tradition. However, in recent years, the practice had not been permitted at the hilltop, with authorities citing administrative and security concerns.

The issue reached the High Court after a petition was filed by a devotee seeking permission to revive the ritual. Acting on the plea, Justice G.R. Swaminathan directed the authorities to allow the lamp lighting, holding that the state had failed to disprove the petitioner’s claim that the practice was rooted in tradition.

Challenging this order, the Tamil Nadu government argued before the division bench that there was no historical or documentary proof to establish that the stone pillar was originally intended as a ‘Deepathoon’. The state maintained that the ritual had traditionally been performed at the Deepa Mandapam nearby and that shifting it to the hilltop amounted to altering long-established practice.

State’s Legal Arguments Rejected

The state, represented by Advocate General P.S. Raman, contended that the question of custom and religious usage could only be decided through a statutory inquiry under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act, not through writ proceedings. According to the government, the single judge had erred by effectively recognising a customary right without following the procedure prescribed under law.

The division bench, however, rejected this argument, holding that the state had failed to demonstrate that the lighting of the lamp was alien to Tamil tradition. The judges noted that mere administrative convenience or the absence of recent practice cannot be grounds to deny a religious observance, particularly when there is no express prohibition in law.

The court also dismissed the contention that the single judge had converted a claim of customary right into a property right, observing that the order was limited to permitting a religious ritual and did not adjudicate ownership disputes.

Multi-Faith Significance of Thirupparankundram

Thirupparankundram hill is widely regarded as a symbol of interfaith coexistence. It houses the ancient Subramaniya Swamy Temple, one of the six abodes of Lord Muruga, the Kasi Viswanathar Temple, and the Sikkander Badusha Dargah, which was established centuries after the temples. Over time, the site has been revered by followers of multiple faiths, often cited as an example of shared sacred space in Tamil Nadu.

During the hearings, representatives of the dargah expressed concerns that the order permitting lamp lighting could affect rights recognised under a 1920 court ruling. Opposing counsels also cautioned that altering established practices might disrupt communal harmony. The devotees, on the other hand, argued that they were merely seeking revival of an old usage, not the creation of a new custom.

The High Court ultimately sided with the devotees, observing that the revival of an ancient practice, if carried out lawfully and without infringing on others’ rights, cannot be opposed on speculative grounds.

Observations on Governance and Mediation

In a significant observation, the bench remarked that the district administration ought to have approached the issue as an opportunity for mediation rather than confrontation. The court suggested that dialogue among stakeholders could have prevented the dispute from escalating into litigation.

By emphasising consultation with the ASI, temple authorities, and police, the judgment underlined the role of the administration as a facilitator of harmony rather than a barrier to religious expression.

Wider Context and Political Undertones

The dispute has unfolded against a backdrop of heightened political attention. In February last year, tensions flared after protests by Hindu organisations over an allegation that a member of parliament had consumed meat on the hill. More recently, the Bharatiya Janata Party described Thirupparankundram as the “Ayodhya of the South,” adding a political dimension to what began as a religious and administrative disagreement.

Despite these undercurrents, the High Court’s ruling focused squarely on constitutional principles, religious freedom, and administrative responsibility.

Conclusion

By upholding the single judge’s order, the Madras High Court has reaffirmed that religious practices grounded in tradition cannot be curtailed on hypothetical law and order concerns. At the same time, it has reinforced the need to protect heritage sites through regulated and consultative approaches.

The judgment is likely to have a broader impact on how administrations handle disputes involving faith, tradition, and protected monuments, setting a precedent that encourages accommodation, dialogue, and respect for long-standing cultural practices within the framework of law.