MADURAI: Much beyond the religious sentiments of two groups, the ongoing tussle over lighting of the Karthigai deepam at Thiruparankundram has turned into a fight where four pillars are involved, one atop the hill, and the other three being Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary – three arms of a democratic government.
Though the matter is pending before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, the members of the bar, political and religious outfits and human rights groups keep the fire raging with back-to-back protests and petitions. Adding fuel to the flames is the recent death by suicide of a 40-year-old man P Poornachandran in Tallakulam, purportedly demanding the lamp to be lighted on the hilltop.
The recent controversy started when a representation sent by Rama Ravikumar of Madurai on October 28, 2025, seeking permission to light the Karthigai deepam on the top of the hill (deepathoon was not mentioned) was rejected by the executive officer of Arulmigu Subramaniya Swami Temple in Thiruparankundram on November 3, saying the deepam would be lit on the usual spot at the mandapam near the Uchipillaiyar temple.
Ravikumar, joined by three others, moved the HC, and Justice GR Swaminathan allowed their petitions on December 1 with a positive direction and the rest, of course, is history. This is but the latest chapter in a battle dating back to more than a century.
History of attempts
The first recorded attempt to light the Karthigai deepam on the hilltop is said to have been made as early as in 1862. This finds a mention in the judgment pronounced by the subordinate Judge of Madura, PG Rama Ayyar, on August 25, 1923, in the civil suit filed by the Thiruparankundram temple devasthanam in 1920, seeking declaration of title and possession of the hill.
Another reference to these attempts could be found in the judgment passed in a suit filed by devasthanam in 1975, which was later set aside in 1980. The then huqdars (those who manage the affairs of the mosque), in a written reply in the suit, had said, “Before the suit in O.S.4/20 (1920 suit), both in 1862 and 1912, the Hindus claimed a right to have a – (word unclear) light on the western side of the top of the hill on a pillar which was used by the defendants (huqdars of mosque) during the festival occasions and it was successfully resisted by the defendants.” However, we are unsure whether the pillar mentioned by the huqdars is the ‘deepathoon’.
1920 civil suit
Though the 1920 suit was not about the Karthigai deepam festival per se, the suit judgment plays a vital role in understanding the present issue, particularly for answering the question whether the ‘deepathoon’ belonged to the dargah or the temple.
The cause of action for the suit is said to be a mandapam built by the Mohammedans in Nellithope in 1915. In addition to the title and possession of the hill, the devasthanam had also sought demolition of the mandapam and recovery of the mandapam site, Nellithope and other portions which were not in its possession. The judge noted that the devasthanam conceded the huqdars’ title to the mosque and the right to go to the mosque, but disputed their claim to the rest of the hill.
Who owns what?
Finally, the subordinate judge decided the suit, in short, as follows: the devasthanam is the owner of the entire hill (except assessed and occupied portions), giriveedhi (subject to government’s rights), Kasi Viswanathaswamy temple, theertham and the trees (except those belonging to private owners) on the hill and the sides of the giriveedhi. The Mohammedans are in possession of the “Nellithope with all that it contains (including the new mandapam), the flight of steps, the new mandapam and the whole of the top of the hillock on which the mosque and the flagstaff stand”.
The judgment was challenged by the huqdars through an appeal suit before a division bench of the Madras High Court in 1924, which surprisingly overturned the judgment on May 4, 1926, ruled that the government, which had not even filed an appeal and only submitted a memorandum of objections, owned the hill. However, the Devasthanam moved the Privy Council in 1930 and a five-judge bench confirmed the 1923 verdict on August 15, 1931.
A running battle
Post 1931, peace prevailed for over two decades till the filing of another suit by the devasthanam in 1958 against the mosque huqdars’ bid to cut rocks from the hill to construct a mandapam to shelter pilgrims visiting the mosque/dargah – in December 1958. The devasthanam sought an injunction against the activities along with `1,100 as damages for the stones already removed from the hill area adjoining Nellithope and the ‘pallivasal’.
But the court found the activities were done within Nellithope area and the assessed and occupied land, and granted an injunction against carrying out any activity outside the areas, adding the exact location and extent of the areas could be determined in a fresh suit. Following an appeal preferred by the devasthanam against the order in 1960, the earlier order was modified by saying the exact location and extent can be determined by way of a ‘survey-knowing commission’.
The devasthanam filed an execution petition two years later and a commissioner was appointed to measure the injunction areas after which the principal sub judge, Madurai, in 1965, gave the huqdars a right of way to a pond situated east of Nellithope.
In 1975, the devasthanam filed another suit seeking permanent injunction to prevent the mosque huqdars from cross-bunding a small depression between the mosque and the flagstaff to store rainwater, claiming the huqdars were only entitled to two structures on the rock and the space between them belongs to the devasthanam. The suit was dismissed in November 1978.
An appeal suit was filed two years later and the above order was set aside with liberty to file a fresh suit. One more suit and an appeal was filed in 2000 and 2011 respectively, in connection with erecting electric lines on the hill and the devasthanam were directed to bear the cost of installing the lines and maintaining them in their respective properties.
Karthigai deepam judgment of ’96
An outfit named Hindu Baktha Gana Sabai of Madurai filed a PIL before the HC in 1994, seeking direction to restrain members of Hindu Munnani from lighting Karthigai deepam on the hilltop near the dargah. This was heard by Justice Kanakaraj who, during the festivals in 1994 and 1995, issued interim orders for the deepam to be lit at the usual place near Uchipillaiyar temple. The judge ordered to ‘remember, recognise and respect’ the decree of the sub court judge in 1923.
Flagstaff row in 2021
In 2011, the huqdars of the mosque had tried to put up a new flag mast near the dargah. Apprehending breach of peace, a peace committee meeting was held by the authorities and resolutions were passed on May 28, 2011 that the practice adopted in the previous year would be followed.
A similar issue arose 10 years later when the huqdars installed a new iron pipe replacing the wooden flag mast near a tree adjacent to the dargah and also decided to keep the flag flying throughout the year. Following a complaint made by Hindu outfits, the revenue and police authorities in June 2021 removed the iron pipe after a peace meeting.
Challenging the proceedings and seeking action against the complainant for giving false information, the then managing trustee of the mosque moved the HC. But the petition was dismissed by Justice G Ilangovan. Though the then temple EO’s counsel suggested surveying and fixing boundary and the huqdars agreed, the additional advocate general refused apprehending more controversies.
Animal sacrifice verdict
Controversy erupted in a new form early 2025 when pamphlets were distributed advertising Kandoori festival on the hill by making animal sacrifice and conducting a Samabanthi feast on January 18. A division bench of justices J Nisha Banu and S Srimathy delivered a split verdict in June, with Justice Banu refusing to interfere with the prayers and animal sacrifice, and Justice Srimathy choosing to ban them. The matter went to a third judge, and Justice R Vijayakumar, on October 10, concurred with Justice Srimathy, saying the Muslims have to establish their right before a civil court to perform animal sacrifice.
Justice Swaminathan’s order
Five petitioners were before Justice Swaminathan, four seeking to light the lamp on deepathoon and one against it. On December 1, two days before the Karthigai Deepam festival, Justice Swaminathan quashed the executive officer’s rejection of Ravikumar’s representation on the ground of jurisdiction and directed the Devasthanam to light the lamp at deepathoon, apart from the usual places, from this year onwards.
He cited Tamil tradition, the need to uphold devotees’ rights and protect temple’s property as reasons for his decision. But, apprehending law and order problems, the state chose not to comply with the order. While the division bench’s decision is awaited, another devotee seeks direction against performing Kandoori during ongoing Santhanakoodu festival in the dargah. The petition was adjourned to January 2.
Petitioners’ claims
1 Deepathoon belongs to temple, has been used in the past to light Karthigai Deepam
2 State is not taking an even-handed approach, tilted against Hindus
3 Not safe in the hands of authorities under Section 63
4 Mediation a strategy to complicate the issue; no fruitful purpose would be served
5 TN Waqf board has no control over the dargah as it is a protected monument (This was disputed by Waqf board counsel citing protection under ASI Act)
6 It is a tradition to light deepam on hilltop; makes it more visible
7 Issue not res judicata