MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in its order on Thiruparankundram case on Tuesday held that the government and other appellants failed to produce formidable evidence to show that Agama Sastra of Saivites prohibits the lighting of a lamp at a place which is not straight on top of the deity in sanctum sanctorum.
“When there is a custom of lighting lamp at the elevated place and a place is available within the limits of devasthanam property, there is no plausible reason for the devasthanam to refuse to comply the wishes of its devotees, when such a request is not against morality or public policy,” a division bench comprising justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan said. However, the devasthanam and the government, without any valid reason, had pre-closed their minds and were not inclined to choose a place on the hill which will serve the purpose of lighting lamp on the auspicious day, they added.
The judges also opined that though some of the appellants claimed the single judge did not give them a fair opportunity to argue the case, this has been cured by the fact that they entertained all the pleas and documents and considered them at length, irrespective of whether or not the said pleas and documents were placed before the single judge.
Justice GR Swaminathan, in an order dated December 1, 2025, had directed the Thirupparankundram temple devasthanam to light Karthigai Deepam on the Deepathoon near the Sikandar Badusha Dargah, in addition to the usual places. However, the order was not implemented citing law and order concerns. Instead, appeals were filed by the district collector, city police commissioner, HR&CE officials, the devasthanam, dargah members and the TN Waqf Board, among others. After extensively hearing all stakeholders, the bench pronounced the order on Tuesday.
The contempt petition filed by the petitioners Rama Ravikumar and S Paramasivam over non-compliance of the December 1 verdict is still pending before Justice Swaminathan. It is expected to be heard on January 9. Meanwhile, senior government counsels requesting anonymity said the state is taking steps to move the Supreme Court against the division bench’s judgment. They were also unsure whether the practice of lighting the lamp at the mandapam near Uchipillaiyar temple is to be dropped in view of the division bench’s order or if the lamp should be lit at both places. Following the judgment, celebrations were held in front of the Subramaniya Swamy Temple. Rama Ravikumar, the main petitioner in the case, along with advocate Arun Swaminathan, functionaries of the Hindu Makkal Katchi, and members of the public, performed special prayers by breaking coconuts.
Ravikumar said the verdict must be implemented in letter and spirit without hurting Hindu sentiments. “We want light, not conflict. The court has given a fitting reprimand to the government,” he said, expressing confidence that the authorities would comply with the order.
Criticising the judgment, advocate S Vanchinathan, representing one of the appellants, told media persons that in the animal sacrifice verdict, the full bench had taken a stand that the dargah members should establish before a civil court that animal sacrifice is a customary practice. However, in the present case, the division bench shifted the burden of proof on the appellants instead of the petitioners, he added.
Inquiry under Section 63 (e) a futile exercise
The judges rejected the solution suggested by the state under Section 63(e) saying it is neither an alternate remedy nor an efficacious remedy. They said when the authorities have expressly taken sides and have constantly ignored the plea of the worshippers for several years, referring the matter to them under 63(e) would make it a futile exercise
Mediation offer rejected
The division bench observed that the dispute could have been resolved amicably through dialogues and they, at the time of hearing appeals, thought of exploring the possibility of amicable settlement through mediation. However, as the arguments proceeded, they realized that some interlopers, who benefit from the continuance of animosity between the two communities, are waiting outside the ring to play the spoil game, the judges said, adding that the petitioners’ counsels also expressed reservation in accepting the offer
Survey stone or Jain lamp post?
The division bench said the ‘deepathoon’ on the hilltop carries distinct features with carvings on either end in addition a bowl shape on the top, which eliminated the ‘calculated campaign’ launched by some of the private individuals that the pillar is only a mark stone left behind by the survey department of the British raj. The theory put forth by the senior counsels appearing for the district authorities that the pillar is a granite stone or a Jain lamp post also failed to inspire the confidence of the bench
Res judicata and maintainability
Though the appellants argued that the petitions suffer res judicata (already decided by competent court), the judges dismissed the statements citing that the reliefs sought in the present writ petitions were not determined in the earlier litigations. Since the issue touches upon the religious freedom to profess and practice, which is protected by the Indian Constitution, the petitions seeking enforcement of a religious practice in protection of fundamental right, are very much maintainable, the judges held