Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioners, who describe themselves as devotees of Lord Muruga, seeking directions to the temple authorities of Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (Ancient Stone Lamp Pillar) located on one of the two peaks of Thirupparankundram Hill, a single-judge bench of G.R. Swaminathan, J., directed the temple management/devasthanam to light the Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon also apart from the usual places.
“Lighting a lamp is a sacred act. It cannot offend anybody’s sensibilities.”
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioners sought directions to the temple authorities that the Karthigai Deepam be lit at the Deepathoon in accordance with ancient practice and in light of the court’s earlier directions in W.P. No.18884 of 1994. However, the Executive Officer refused their request and stated that “as per the established custom of the temple, Karthigai Deepam would be lit in the Deepa Mandapam near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple.”
Aggrieved by the impugned refusal, the petitioners filed present writ petitions seeking —
-
Quashment of communication of the temple,
-
Direction to light the Deepam at the Deepathoon, and
-
Police/protective arrangements to enable performance.
The State, Temple management, Dargha trustees, and Waqf Board opposed the prayer and defended the existing practice of lighting the lamp near Uchi Pillaiyar. The petitions were heard together as they raised the same questions.
Moot points
-
Whether the temple management can be directed to light the Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon instead of/or in addition to, lighting it near Uchi Pillaiyar Temple?
-
Whether petitioners have locus standi as “persons having interest” under Section 6(15) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (HR&CE Act)?
-
Whether the matter is barred by res judicata due to earlier orders in W.P.(MD) No.19422 of 201?
-
Whether the dispute requires adjudication by the civil court or HR&CE authorities?
-
Whether lighting the lamp at Deepathoon affects the rights of the Dargah or violates the Places of Worship Act?
Petitioners’ Contentions
The petitioners contended that they are devout worshipers and “persons having interest” entitled to insist that traditional practices be maintained. It was contented that Deepathoon is a temple property, located on the lower summit, and that lighting the festival lamp there is a part of Tamil tradition of lighting lamps atop hilltops and supported the same by references from classical Tamil literature, including Agananooru and Seevaga Chinthamani and idiom “Kundrin Mel Itta Vilakkai Pola.” They relied on clauses (3) and (4) of the 1996 order in WP No. 18884/1994, which permitted lighting Deepam in future years at any place on the hill with due regard to proximity to Dargha. They submitted that Deepathoon is far more than the minimum 15 meters from the Dargah and lies in the undisputed temple-owned portion. They emphasised the need to restore tradition.
On the other hand, the respondents contented that petitioners are mere individuals without an enforceable right. It was contended that for more than 100 years, the festival lamp was lit only near Uchi Pillaiyar Temple and never at Deepathoon. They argued the issue required demarcation and civil court proceedings. The respondents pointed to the 2014 judgment which refused a similar prayer and contended that the present petition is barred by Res judicata. It was further contended that any change must be determined under Section 63 HR&CE Act as a question of custom. It was also contended that the petitioners want to create communal trouble and vitiate the tranquil atmosphere prevailing in Madurai
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that there exists a long-standing conflict between the Hindu temple and the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah, which is situated on the highest peak of Thirupparankundram Hill. The court noted that the hill houses —
-
The Subramania Swamy Temple at the foot,
-
The Uchi Pillaiyar Temple midway,
-
The Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah at the highest peak, and
-
The Deepathoon is at a lower peak, approximately 50 meters from the Dargah.
The Court extensively traced earlier litigation since O.S. No. 4 of 1920, whre the the Privy Council held that “the unoccupied portion of the hill has been in the possession of the temple from time immemorial”, while Muslims had rights only over Nellithope, flight of steps, and actual site on which the mosque stands. The Court noted that the Deepathoon (where the petitioners are requesting to light the lamp) is located on the lower peak, which is not part of Nellithope nor the mosque site, and historically within the temple-owned area.
The Court held that petitioners are “persons having interest” under Section 6(15) HR&CE Act because they are devotees entitled to attend worship. The Court rejected the respondents’ argument based on pre-HR&CE precedents, and held that “the petitioners pass muster on that score.”
On the need for fresh demarcation, the Court asserted that the issue is long settled and the Privy Council affirmed the Civil court’s 1923 decree identifying exactly which areas belong to the temple and the mosque. The Court noted that the Only three small areas belong to the Dargah, the entire upper portion (except the mosque’s immediate site) belongs to the Devasthanam and Deepathoon is not within the Dargah area and lies 50 meters away. Thus, the Court held that “there is no need to go to civil court yet again.”
With regards to the nature and ownership of Deepathoon, the Court closely analysed the 1923 decree and site conditions and noted that the Deepathoon is at the lower peak and is not in occupied portion of the Muslims. The Court stated that the Privy Council had held that the unoccupied portion of the hill belongs to the Hindus. The Court also noted that the temple itself had recently put a covering around the Deepathoon, showing temple control over the structure. Thus, the Court held that the Deepathoon exclusively belongs to the temple.
The Court held the earlier petitions, WP(MD)No. 19422 of 2014 dated 04-12-2014 and WA(MD)No. 1524 of 2014 dated 07-12-2017, concerned lighting lamp on the hilltop i.e., mosque summit which belongs to Muslims, not at Deepathoon which is on a lower peak. Therefore, the Court held that “the present round of proceedings outside the spell of res judicata.”
The Court noted that Tamil people have the tradition of lighting lamps atop the hill during the Tamil month of Karthigai. The Court stated that “the writ petitioners are justified in demanding that the temple management resumes or restores this tradition. Even if it is not a matter of custom, asserting the title of the temple over the lower peak by lighting at the Deepathoon is imperative.” The Court held emphatically that “the question is not one of custom. The question is one of right.”
The Court stressed on the devasthanam’s legal and moral duty and stated that temple management must periodically assert ownership over hill areas to prevent future encroachments. The Court compared this to the High Court’s practice of closing its gates once a year to avoid easement claims. Thus, the Court held that lighting the lamp at Deepathoon is not a matter of religious tradition alone but is necessary “for the sake of protecting its property.”
“Devasthanam has the duty to maintain traditions. If traditions have been abandoned, the temple management has to restore them so long as constitutional morality is not breached. Lighting a lamp is a sacred act.”
“It is therefore necessary that the temple management remains vigilant throughout to foil any attempt to encroach on its property. This can be done only by regular and periodical assertion of title. 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.”
The Court further stated that lighting a lamp “does not alter any religious character” nor affects the Dargah structure. The Deepathoon at least 50 meters away from the Dargah and outside the three areas belonging to Muslims, well beyond the 15-meter safety zone prescribed in 1996.
The Court noted that the impugned decision was taken by the Executive Officer alone, even though the temple has a Trust Board and was therefore without jurisdiction. The Court held that impugned communication is liable to be quashed without jurisdiction.
Court’s Decision
The Court allowed the petition and directed the temple management/devasthanam to light the Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon also apart from the usual places. The Court order for Police protection and tasked the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City to ensure its compliance.
“The Karthigai Deepam shall be lit from this year onwards at Deepathoon also.”
[Rama Ravikumar v. District Collector, Madurai, W.P(MD)No. 32317 of 2025, Decided on 01-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr.M.R.Venkatesh for Mr.R.M.Arun Swaminathan, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr.J.Ravindran, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader, Counsel for the Respondent 1
Mr. A.Albert James, Government Advocate, Counsel for the Respondent 2
Mr.Shanmugasundaram, Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Suriya Anandh, Additional Government Pleader, Counsel for the Respondents 3 and 8
Mr.V.Chandrasekhar, Counsel for the Respondents 4
Mr.T.Mohan, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Syed Abdul Kather, Counsel for the Respondent 5
Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, Counsel for the Respondent 6
Mr.K.Govindarajan, DSGI, Counsel for the Respondent 7
Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed, Counsel for the Respondent 9
Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent 10
Mr.S.Vanchinathan, Counsel for the Respondent 11