Ridiculous To Believe That Deepam Ritual At Thirupparankundram Hill Will Cause Disturbance To Public Peace; It May Happen Only If Sponsored By State Itself: Madras High Court

The Court disposed of the appeals by directing the Devasthanam team to light the lamp at the Deepathoon during the Karthigaideepam festival under the coordination of the District Collector, while mandating that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) impose preservation conditions and the police restrict public access to the site to ensure both monumental safety and public order.

​The Division Bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed, “It is ridiculous and hard to believe the fear of the mighty State that by allowing representatives of the Devasthanam to light the lamp at the stone pillar near top of the hill located within its territory of devasthanam land, on a particular day in a year, will cause disturbance to public peace. Of course, it may happen only if such disturbance is sponsored by the State itself. We pray no State should stoop to that level to achieve their political agenda.”

Senior Advocate N Jothi appeared on behalf of the Appellants, whereas Senior Advocates P. Valliappan, R. Shunmugasundaram, T. Mohan, C. Arul Vadivel, and Addl. Advocate Generals Veera Kathiravan, J. Ravindaran appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Court was hearing the challenge to the judgment of the High Court Bench of a single judge, which directed the Executive Officer of the Thiruparangundram Devasthanam to lit lamp at the stone lamp pillar in the hill on the full moon evening of the Tamil Karthigai month. The State, represented by the District Collector and Superintendent of Police, apprehended that the implementation of this order would create disturbance to the public peace. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Department ('HR & CE Department') said that the order is against ‘Agama Shastra’, and some of the adversaries said that it is a new custom invented by the Court.

The appeals were directed against the right of the worshippers recognized in the batch of Writ Petitions. The Court had viewed that by directing the Executive Officer to light the lamp on the Karthigai Deepam Day at the lamp pillar made of stone (‘Deepathoon’), it is a restoration of the religious custom and practice. The said pillar is located on a flat surface of a rock, a little below the highest Peak of the Hill, where the Dharga of Suji Saint is located. Thus, the location is the real epicentre of the controversy. In the impugned judgment, the Court had also observed that the revival and retrieval of the practice would well assert the property right of the Devasthanam.

Contention of the Parties

The appellant challenged the impugned judgment on both procedural and substantive grounds, contending that the writ petition was a "forum shopping" exercise that should have been heard by a Division Bench and is barred by the principle of res judicata due to previous similar litigations. They argued that the judgment represents judicial over-reach by recording findings on title and custom without impleading the Board of Trustees or relegating the parties to a civil court to resolve disputed facts regarding the stone pillar's purpose. Furthermore, the appellant asserted that lighting the Maha-deepam near the Dargah contradicts 'Agamasastra'—which designates the 'Deepa Mandapam' near the Uchipillaiyar Temple for such rituals—and poses significant risks to public order, communal harmony, and the physical safety of the Dargah structure, especially given historical executive bans on similar attempts dating back to 1862 and 1912.

The temple management and the HR & CE Department contended that the entire hill is temple property and should be maintained according to Hindu traditions, while also emphasizing the need for strict regulation to prevent unauthorized activities. It was submitted by the HR &CE Department that there is no such established custom to light the lamp in that particular place on the hill. Any direction by the Court to light the lamp at the stone pillar found near the Dharga will set a new custom and also cause disturbance to the public peace. It was contended that the impugned judgment tends to create disharmony.

The Jamath Members of the Dharga submitted that the impugned judgment was passed in gross violation of the natural justice principle and has to be set aside forthwith. The writ petitioner had couched his prayer, which is of wide public ramification, as if it were his private litigation and moved the writ court even without impleading the representatives of the Dharga, whose interest is substantially involved in the lis.

Additionally, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) submitted that no religious activities or administrative actions would damage the site’s protected archaeological features.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed, “No one can have even an iota of doubt about the fact that lighting lamp at the hill on the full moon day of Tamil month, Karthigai is a religious usage and part of Tamil Culture. The said culture and usage is followed throughout the State and even in neighboring States from time immemorial. Therefore we hold that, writ petitions seeking enforcement of a religious practice in protection of fundamental right deserve to be entertained.”

The Court added that the prime reason to hold so is that the issue touches upon the religious freedom to profess and practice, which is protected under Article 25 (1) and also the freedom of expression protected under Article 19 (1) (a) as well as Article 29 (1) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees citizens of all sections, residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own, shall have the right to conserve the same.

“We find that, in this case, the alternate remedy of resorting to Section 63(e) of the Act, will only put the parties again to go through the mill of statutory appeals in the hierarchy, which they have already undergone and fortified with a civil Court decree, which has determined their respective rights in the Thiruparankunram Hill and further protected by the observations of this Court in W.P.No.18884 of 1994. Hence, we hold that the issue, which has undergone judicial scrutiny in different forms for the past 100 years, needs to be resolved to maintain comity instead of keeping the fire live even without lighting the lamp. Therefore, we hold that the alternate remedy of resorting to the provisions of Act is not efficacious.”, the Court held.

With regard to the issue of whether the petitions suffer res judicata or constructive res judicata, the Court held, “The Supreme Court Judgment in the Sabarimala case cited supra, had clarified that, the principle of res judicata is applicable to writ petitions also, but when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the Court, technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had gone to the extend of saying,” even in the selfsame proceeding, the earlier order though final, was treated not to create a bar inasmuch as the controversy before the Court was of grave public interest. Thus, even if it is said that there was a final order, in a dispute of this type it would be difficult to entertain the plea of res judicata. Nonetheless, from the extracts of the prior litigation and the findings , it is demonstrated that there was no final order in any of the earlier proceedings passed in the matter of lighting deepam at a place other than the place traditionally lighted. Therefore by no stretch, the defence of res judicata available to the appellants.”

Conclusion

The Court concluded that the appellants failed to produce formidable evidence to show that Agama Sastra of Saivites prohibits lighting a lamp at a place which is not straight on top of the deity in the Sanctum sanctorum; nor is the case of the Devasthanam or the Government that lighting deepam is not a custom prevailing in Thirupankundram Hill.

It was also concluded that the Waqf Board, as of date have no locus in this matter and on behalf of the Waqf, a mischievous submission was made that the lamp pillar belongs to Dharga.

The Court further said, “We find that the apprehension expressed by the District Administration regarding probability of disturbance to the public peace is nothing but an imaginary ghost created by them for their convenience sake and to put one community against other community under suspicion and constant mistrust. By allowing few persons from Devasthanam to the pillar for lighting the lamp and keep the devotees stay at the foothill and worship is not an un-manageable task. Projecting as if such congregation will cause disturbance to peace, stampede, disharmony among community etc., is either exposure of their incapacity to maintain law and order or hesitant to bring harmony among the communities.”

The Court gave the following directions: 1) The Devastham must light the lamp at the Deepathoon. In addition to the prohibitions and restrictions as found in the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Acts and Rules, ASI shall impose conditions appropriate and necessary to preserve the monuments in the hill.

2) The Devasthanam, through its team, has to light the lamp in the Deepathoon on the occasion of the Karthigaideepam festival falling in the Tamil month of Karthigai. No public shall be allowed to accompany the Devasthanam team, and the number of team members shall be decided in consultation with the ASI and Police. The District Collector shall coordinate and supervise the event.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the appeals.

Cause Title: The Executive Officer Arulmigu Subramanian Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, Madurai v. Rama.Ravikumar and Ors. [W.A(MD) Nos.3188, 3189, 3204, 3211, 3212, 3213, 3217, 3218, 3219, 3220, 3221, 3222, 3223, 3225, 3226, 3227, 3229, 3230, 3231, 3232 of 2025]

Appearances:

Appellants: Senior Advocate N Jothi and Advocate V. Chandrasekar

Respondents: Senior Advocates P. Valliappan, R. Shunmugasundaram, T. Mohan, C. Arul Vadivel, Addl. Advocate Generals Veera Kathiravan, J. Ravindaran, GP Thilakkumar, Addl. PP S.Ravi, Advocates R M. Arun Swaminathan, NRR. Arun Natarajan, A. Sheikh Nasurdeen, G. Prabhu Rajadurai, Abdul Mubeen, D.S. Haroon Rasheed, Niranjan S. Kumar, A.K. Amaravel Pandiyan and S. Vanchinathan.

Click here to read/download the Judgment