(Thiruparankundram Deepam Case)
This Article is written by Jeyashri R, B.Sc. LL.B., student at the Government Law College, Madurai, Tamil Nadu. This article discusses the background, facts, issues framed, the petitioner’s and respondent’s arguments, the Court’s observations and the final decision given by the High Court.
India is a mosaic of socio-cultural diversity. The Preamble of the Indian Constitution declares India as a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic and Republic country. Therefore, everyone has the Right to religion as per Part III of the Indian Constitution. This case challenges the principles of the Indian Constitution.
BACKGROUND OF THIS CASE
In the state of Tamil Nadu, the “Thiruparankundram Hill” is situated in the city of Madurai. It is home to the Hindu Lord Murugan (ancient Arulmigu Subramanian Swamy Cave Temple). Over time, Jain rock beds and caves were also carved into the hill. In addition, the Sufi saint Sikkandar Badhusha’s burial site was at the top of the Hill, later it became a Muslim Dargah.
The matter of dispute is lighting the festival lamp (or Karthigai Deepam) during the Tamil month Karthigai, which is a famous Tamil Hindu Tradition. The main controversy is the ‘place of lighting’ of the festival lamp. In late November 2025, under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, a group of Hindu devotees approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court’s single bench led by Justice G.R. Swaminathan. They are seeking permission to light the Karthigai Deepam (festival light) on December 3 at the stone pillar near the Muslim Dargah.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Rama Ravikumar is the Petitioner, a devout follower of the Hindu Lord Murugan. He approached the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court to light the festival lamp at the ancient Stone Lamp Pillar situated near the Muslim Dargah in the Hill. This hill is popularly known as the First House of the Tamil Hindu god, Lord Murugan. The Petitioner challenged the temple management’s direction to light the festival lamp at the Deepa Mandapam near the Lord Ganesh temple (Uchi Pilayar temple). Multiple writ petitions were filed on this same issue.
ISSUES FRAMED
1. Whether the Temple management has the authority to direct to light the festival lamp at the ancient Stone Lamp Pillar?
2. Whether the court has the power to uphold the rights of the temple management against the Muslim Dhargah, regarding the site for lighting the festival lamp?
3. Whether Customary practices prevail over religious rights?
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
- The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (TNHRCE), 1959.
- The Place of Worship Act, 1991
- The Indian Constitution, 1950
- The Limitation Act, 1963, though it might not fully apply in this case due to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT’S
The petitioners argued that the right to light the lamp on the stone pillar is based on long-standing practice and the temple’s ownership. In addition, they argued that the temple management has a duty to follow the tradition of lighting the festival lamp at the stone pillar near the Muslim Dargah, which is a part of the temple’s property. They also argued that lighting a lamp at the stone pillar is not just a customary practice. It is a property right and religious tradition that the temple management must protect.
The petitioners also argued that the temple management must assert its right over the stone pillar to prevent encroachment or disturbances from the Muslim Dargah. And claimed that lighting the festival lamp at the stone pillar is part of the Tamil culture and tradition.
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENT’S
The respondent argued that lighting the lamp near the Lord Ganesh Temple is a custom of more than 100 years. They claimed this long‑standing tradition is a matter of customary rights, which the court should respect unless there’s clear proof of a change or a new customary right.
The respondent argued that the temple management’s decision to light the festival lamp at the Stone pillar falls within its rights; no permission from external authorities is needed under the relevant statutes because the site is temple property. In addition, the respondent argued that the petitioners’ motives are communal and could cause religious disturbance. They also argued that the petitioners aren’t truly protecting the Hindu tradition, but rather they are pulling in outside bodies.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The Ratio decidendi in this case is: The temple management has a legal duty to protect its traditions and rights. It helps to safeguard the rights of the temple. This duty comes from the temple’s ownership, history, culture, and laws.
LEGAL PRECEDENTS
- In the case of P.R. Murlidharan v. Swamy Dharmanandha Theertha Padar 2006 (4) SCC 501, the court’s decision highlights that the temple management has a duty to uphold traditions, and respect devotees’ rights. When disputes arise over rituals, they need to be settled based on established laws and historical rights.
- In the case of T.K. Saminathan v. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration 2011 (4) CTC 48, the Court balanced the temple rights and laws.
COURT’S OBSERVATIONS
The Court’s observations are as follows:
- The temple management has a legal duty to uphold traditions and prioritising the protection of religious customs.
- Lighting the festival lamp at the stone pillar is a key to preserving traditions and property rights of the temple management, because it is clear that the temple management owns that site.
- The temple management must protect the temple’s property and customs to prevent encroachment and safeguard its heritage.
- The temple management must assert their rights to stop unauthorised interference.
FINAL DECISION
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court’s single bench ruled in favour of the petitioner. The Court ruled that the temple management to light the festival light (deepam) at the stone pillar, along with the present lighting place (near Lord Ganesh temple). The court ordered the Tamil Nadu police force, to ensure protection for the petitioner while lighting the festival lamp at the stone pillar near the Muslim Dargah.
CONCLUSION
The Hon’ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upholds the Customary practices. The Court’s decision is based on the temple management rights over the stone pillar. This Judgement emphasised lighting the festival light at the stone pillar is a sacred act, with the Tamil cultural practices and protects the temple’s property. Therefore, the Dargah or Muslim management’s objections don’t override the temple’s legal rights.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What does the term ‘custom’ mean?
Jurist Starke defines the term custom as “Usage represents the twilight stage of custom. Custom begins where usage ends”.
Which article ensures the right to religion in the Indian Constitution?
Articles 25 to 28 of the Indian Constitution ensure the right to freedom of religion.
What is the aim of the Limitation Act, 1963?
The Limitation Act, 1963, provides the period for filing Civil Suits. The aim of this act: the Civil Suits must be filed within the time period (Limitation).
What are the kinds of writs under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution?
There are five kinds of writs under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. They are: Habeas corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo warrento.
What is meant by res judicata?
Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, deals about res judicata. It bars the re-litigation of a matter that has already been adjudicated by a competent court.
REFERENCES
- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/2046905 .
- https://lawchakra.in/high-court/lighting-deepam-harm-muslim-rights .
- https://www.saflii.org/za/journals/AHRLJ/2014/32.html
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/madras-high-court-upholds-order-allowing-karthigai-deepam-at-thirupparankundram-deepathoon/articleshow/126366743.cms
- https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/INDMAD00000570611
- https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02100091170
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1649577/
- https://share.google/fzSydtmN04cZ33Agd
- https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india
- https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1565/5/A1963-36.pdf
- https://www.pahujalawacademy.com/doctrine-of-res-judicata#:~:text=Derived%20from%20Latin%2C%20%22res%22,adjudicated%20by%20a%20competent%20court.
