Madras HC on Thiruparankundram: Balancing Faith, Heritage and Public Order

Why in News ?

The Madras High Court allowed the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp at Thiruparankundram hill near Madurai, while rejecting the Tamil Nadu government’s apprehensions of communal unrest as speculative. However, the court barred public participation, permitting the ritual to be performed only by a limited temple team under official supervision.

Background and Context of the Thiruparankundram Dispute

Thiruparankundram hill, rising around 1,050 feet on the outskirts of Madurai, is a site of layered religious and cultural history. At its foothills stands the ancient Arulmigu Subramanian Swamy Cave Temple, one of the six abodes (Arupadai Veedu) of Lord Murugan. Over centuries, the hill also developed Jain associations, evidenced by rock beds and inscriptions.

Sufi Dargah at the Summit

At the summit lies the burial site of the Sufi saint Sikkandar Badhusha, around which a dargah evolved. This has given the hill multiple identities—Thiruparankundram, Samanar Hill, and Sikkandar Hill—making it a shared sacred landscape. Due to this overlapping religious significance, the site has historically required tight administrative regulation, especially during festivals.

Early Legal Settlement (1920–1923)

• In 1920, the temple Devasthanam filed a civil suit claiming ownership of the hill.
• In 1923, the trial court ruled that:
  • Most of the hill and pilgrim pathways belonged to the temple.
  • The topmost peak, mosque area, Nellithope, and access steps belonged to the Muslim community.

This judgment continues to form the legal foundation for managing competing religious claims.

Earlier Disputes at Thiruparankundram

Recurring Litigation

Disputes over ritual practices, access, and structures have surfaced repeatedly, reflecting the sensitive coexistence at the site.

Key Controversies

• 2021: Dispute over replacing a wooden flagstaff at the dargah with an iron one.
• 2025: Litigation over animal sacrifice at the summit, which was prohibited by a three-judge Bench, citing the hill’s status as a protected monument under ASI rules.

Lamp-Lighting Restrictions

• Historical records show that authorities restricted lamp-lighting near the summit even in the 19th century, citing lack of established custom.
• In 1996, the Madras High Court permitted Karthigai Deepam lighting only at the Uchipillaiyar Temple mandapam, or at alternative sites at least 15 metres away from the dargah and its access routes.

Trigger for the 2025 Thiruparankundram Dispute

Petition for Lighting the Deepam

In November 2025, worshippers sought permission to light the Karthigai Deepam on December 3 at a stone pillar known locally as the “Deepathoon” near the summit.

Single Judge’s Order

• Allowed the ritual, treating it as restoration of a religious practice.
• Directed the temple authorities to perform the ritual with police protection.
• Initiated contempt proceedings when officials cited law-and-order concerns.

State Government’s Objections

• Argued that disputes over custom and usage should be adjudicated under the HR&CE Act, not writ jurisdiction.
• Claimed the Deepathoon might be a survey marker or Jain relic, not a ritual structure.
• Imposed prohibitory orders citing potential communal tension, preventing the ritual on the festival day.

Appeals Filed

The State government, HR&CE Department, and representatives of the dargah challenged the Single Judge’s order before a Division Bench.

What Did the Madras High Court Division Bench Rule ?

Recognition of Deepathoon

The Bench held that the structure was indeed a Deepathoon, noting the carved cavity designed to hold oil and wicks, rejecting the State’s alternative explanations.

Rejection of Security Concerns

The court termed the State’s apprehensions an “imaginary ghost”, observing that:

• A small, regulated ritual once a year was administratively manageable.
• Any disturbance would arise only if “sponsored by the State itself.”

Restricted Performance of the Ritual

• Allowed lighting of the Karthigai Deepam.
• Barred public access, limiting the ritual to a small Devasthanam team.

Administrative and Heritage Safeguards

• Directed the District Collector to coordinate the process.
• Mandated strict compliance with Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) conditions to protect the monument.

Governance and Constitutional Significance

• Reinforces Article 25 (freedom of religion), subject to public order and heritage protection.
• Clarifies the judiciary’s role in balancing religious rights with administrative authority.
• Emphasises that law-and-order concerns must be evidence-based, not speculative.
• Highlights challenges in governing shared sacred spaces in a plural society.