The lighting of the sacred Karthigai Deepam has long held deep religious and cultural significance for Hindu devotees across Tamil Nadu. At Thiruparankundram, one of the six revered abodes of Lord Murugan, the ritual assumes added importance as it symbolises faith, continuity of tradition, and collective devotion visible from afar.
A long-standing dispute over the lighting of the ceremonial lamp atop the Thiruparankundram hill brought the issue into sharp public focus. Concerns raised by authorities about law and order, communal harmony, and competing claims over the site led to legal intervention, turning a religious practice into a constitutional and administrative debate.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has now delivered a decisive verdict, reaffirming religious rights while strongly criticising what it described as unfounded fears. The ruling has wider implications for how faith, governance, and public order intersect in plural societies.
High Court Upholds Lighting of Karthigai Deepam
The Madras High Court upheld the order directing the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the stone pillar, known as the Deepathoon, located atop the Thiruparankundram hills. The Division Bench categorically rejected the state government’s argument that performing the ritual could disturb public peace or communal harmony.
Pronouncing its verdict, the bench emphasised that the ritual was to be carried out on temple land and was part of a well-established religious practice. The judges noted that the state’s apprehensions lacked concrete evidence and could not override constitutionally protected religious freedoms.
By affirming the earlier single-judge order, the court reinforced the principle that administrative convenience or speculative concerns cannot dilute lawful religious observances.
Background of the Legal Dispute
The appeals before the Division Bench arose from a December 1 order passed by Justice GR Swaminathan, who had allowed a petition seeking permission to light the Karthigai Deepam on the hilltop pillar. Despite the clear direction, the order was not implemented due to objections raised by district authorities and police officials.
The Executive Officer of the Thiruparankundram Murugan Temple, the Madurai District Collector, and the Madurai City Police Commissioner jointly challenged the single-judge ruling. They cited concerns over potential unrest and competing religious claims in the area.
After reserving its judgment on December 18, the bench delivered a detailed ruling that addressed each contention raised by the appellants.
Key Questions Before the Court
The Division Bench examined two principal legal questions. The first was whether the stone pillar atop the hill could be treated as a Deepathoon for Hindus, thereby entitling devotees to light the lamp as part of the Karthigai Deepam ritual.
The second question focused on whether allowing the ritual would infringe upon the rights of a nearby Muslim shrine or disturb communal harmony. These questions lay at the heart of the dispute and required the court to balance religious rights with public order considerations.
The bench concluded that the pillar was indeed associated with the Hindu ritual and that the practice did not encroach upon or violate the rights of any other religious group.
Strong Observations Against the State
In unusually sharp language, the court criticised the position taken by the state government. The judges described it as “ridiculous and hard to believe” that the state could claim it was incapable of maintaining public order if a lamp was lit on temple land.
Such a stance, the court observed, undermines the authority and responsibility of the administration. The bench made it clear that speculative fears cannot be used as a shield to deny lawful religious practices.
The ruling underscored that governance requires proactive management of harmony, not pre-emptive denial of rights based on imagined threats.
Rejection of Claims Over Ownership of the Pillar
During the hearings, a submission was made suggesting that the stone pillar belonged to a nearby dargah. The court dismissed this argument outright, terming it a “mischievous submission” unsupported by evidence.
The judges clarified that the pillar’s historical and ritual association with the Karthigai Deepam could not be negated by such claims. They stressed that introducing ownership disputes without substantiation only complicates sensitive issues unnecessarily.
By rejecting this contention, the court removed a major obstacle that had been cited to block the ritual.
Recognition of Established Religious Practice
The bench highlighted that lighting a deepam at an elevated location is a well-recognised Hindu practice, intended to make the flame visible to devotees over a wide area. Such visibility, the court noted, is intrinsic to the symbolism of the Karthigai Deepam festival.
The judges observed that there was no plausible reason for the temple administration to delay or deny the devotees’ request. The ritual, they held, was not a new practice but a continuation of tradition.
This acknowledgment reinforced the legitimacy of the devotees’ demands and the temple’s obligation to honour them.
Law and Order Concerns Termed Imaginary
Addressing repeated references to possible disturbances, the court remarked that the fear of law-and-order problems was “nothing but an imaginary ghost created conveniently.” Such unfounded apprehensions, the bench warned, risk sowing mistrust between communities.
The judges emphasised that the role of the state is to foster harmony through fair enforcement of law, not by restricting religious expression based on conjecture.
The observations serve as a reminder that peace is maintained through confidence in institutions, not by curbing legitimate practices.
Directions for Orderly Conduct of the Ritual
While directing that the lamp must be lit at the Deepathoon, the court also laid down safeguards to ensure orderliness. It specified that only temple Devasthanam officials would be permitted to carry out the ritual.
No members of the general public would be allowed to accompany them, thereby minimising crowd-related issues. The Madurai District Collector was directed to personally supervise the event.
The Archaeological Survey of India was granted the authority to impose conditions necessary for the protection and preservation of the monument.
Political Reactions and Next Legal Steps
Following the verdict, the Tamil Nadu government announced its intention to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court. The ruling party stated that it would carefully study the judgment before deciding on the next course of action.
Political reactions were swift, with leaders offering contrasting views on the implications of the verdict. Supporters of the ruling hailed it as a victory for religious freedom, while critics framed it within a broader political narrative.
The issue is now poised to move to the apex court, where questions of law, administration, and religious rights may be revisited.
Broader Implications of the Verdict
The Madras High Court’s ruling goes beyond the immediate dispute at Thiruparankundram. It sets an important precedent on how courts may view administrative objections to religious practices rooted in tradition.
By firmly rejecting speculative law-and-order arguments, the judgment reinforces the idea that constitutional rights cannot be curtailed without compelling reasons.
As the debate continues in higher judicial forums, the verdict stands as a significant statement on faith, governance, and the rule of law in a diverse society.
Also Read: Trumps Venezuela Oil Revival Plan Risks $100 Billion Bet
