Plea In Supreme Court Challenging Madras High Court's Decision Mandating ASI's Approval For Lighting Lamp At Thiruparankundram Hill

A Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Supreme Court assailing the order of the Madras High Court confirming the decision permitting the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam on a stone pillar located on the lower peak of the Thiruparankundram hillock, subject to prior consultation and clearance from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the police.

By upholding the single judge’s judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court cleared the way for the traditional lamp-lighting ceremony to proceed at that specific location.

The petition, filed by AOR G Balaji, says, "Notwithstanding the same, the impugned Order proceeds to impose unwarranted fetters on the Temple's lawful rights and, more particularly, mandates the Temple to seek permission from the Archaeological Survey of India even for the performance of its essential and time-honoured religious practice of lighting the Deepam during festivals, thereby amounting to an impermissible intrusion into the Temple's established religious and proprietary rights."

The Petition before the Apex Court is filed by Rama Ravikumar, the Petitioner before the High Court, who claims to be a devout follower of Lord Muruga, who initially applied to the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, seeking permission to light the Karthigai Deepam for this year.

"The impugned judgment grossly misconstrues the civil Court decree, which unequivocally declares the Temple's rights and grants permanent injunction in its favour, and proceeds as though such rights are conditional or subject to executive discretion...Because the existence of a subsisting and final decree disentitles the High Court from imposing fresh restrictions or supervisory conditions in collateral writ proceedings, amounting to an impermissible indirect appeal over a civil Court decree. Because the direction requiring the Temple to obtain permission from the Archaeological Survey of India or other authorities for each occasion of lighting Deepam is arbitrary, impractical, unsupported by statute, and directly interferes with the day-to-day religious functioning of the Temple," the plea says.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, and says that it unjustifiably curtails and restricts the rights of the Tiruparankundram Lord Subramania Swami Temple in the use, enjoyment and management of a substantial portion of the Tiruparankundram Hill, which admittedly vests in the Temple.

It says, "The Temple's title and proprietary rights over the said hill stand conclusively affirmed by the Hon'ble Privy Council in civil proceedings and have thereafter been consistently recognised and followed by the Hon'ble High Court in a catena of decisions."

The Plea inter alia raises the following grounds, "Whether the Hon'ble Division Bench erred in law in failing to recognise that the right to light the Karthigai Deepam anywhere within the precincts and properties of the Temple constitutes an integral and essential religious practice protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India?... Whether the Hon'ble High Court was justified in law in requiring the Temple to obtain prior permission from the Archaeological Survey of India or other authorities for each occasion of lighting Deepam, in the absence of any statutory mandate or condition contained in the civil Court decree?"

The Petitioner contends that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by prescribing who may or may not light the Deepam, a matter falling exclusively within the Temple's religious and denominational autonomy, and the impugned order curtails the customary and long-standing right of Hindu devotees to access the hilltop for worship, including lighting Deepam, without any authority of law.

"Because the impugned action, while judicially protecting the access and usage rights of devotees of another faith up to Nellithope, unjustifiably curtails the Petitioner's religious practice without lawful justification, resulting in hostile discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 25...Because by confining the Deepam t o a constrained and administratively dictated location, the impugned judgment reduces a constitutionally protected religious observance to a symbolic and ineffective ritual, causing grave and irreparable prejudice to devotees," the Plea says.

The Petitioner prays for an ad interim stay on the operation of the impugned judgment.

Background

Recently, the Supreme Court issued notice in a petition seeking to take over the entire Thirupparankundram Temple by the Archaeological Survey of India and to light a lamp on the top of the Deepathoon (ancient stone lamp post) located on the top of Thiruparankundram Hill Pillar permanently for 24 hours daily.

The High Court, on December 18, 2025, had reserved its verdict on a series of appeals against a single judge’s order. The Single Judge's order permitted the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam (lamp) at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) on the Thiruparankundram Hills, located near a dargah. Rama Ravikumar, who claimed to be a devout follower of Lord Muruga, sought such a direction via Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench, and then,a few other Writ Petitions were also filed for the very same relief.

On December 4, 2025, despite an order of the Madras High Court passed in a contempt of court case allowing lighting of the Karthigai Deepam atop Thiruparankundram Hill, Madurai, by the Petitioner under protective escort by the CISF, Tamil Nadu Police prevented the ritual, triggering protests. A Bench of Justice G. R. Swaminathan, in a contempt petition, passed the directions allowing the petitioners to light the deepam under CISF protection after the temple management and the state had failed to comply with its previous order.

On December 1, 2025, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court had heard writ petitions filed by devotees seeking restoration of the tradition of lighting the Karthigai Deepam at the ancient “Deepathoon”, a lamp-pillar on Thiruparankundram Hill historically used for ritual lighting. The temple authorities had decided, for this year, to limit the ceremony to the lower-hill mandapam near Uchipillaiyar shrine, citing proximity to the dargah atop the hill.

Justice Swaminathan, while rejecting their objections, referencing a 1923 civil decree affirming the temple’s title over the hill, upheld later by the Privy Council, held that the Deepathoon stood in unoccupied temple property and outside the dargah precinct. The Court quashed the Executive Officer’s decision to confine lighting to the mandapam and directed that the Deepam be lit at Deepathoon this year, ordering police protection to ensure enforcement.

Thiruparankundram Hill houses the centuries-old Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple at its foot and the Sikandar Badusha Dargah atop, a status that has long generated religious and communal sensitivities. Over decades, the traditional hill-top lamp lighting during the Tamil month of Karthigai was progressively curtailed, with lighting restricted to lower-hill structures near the mandapam.

The Single Bench had also reprimanded the Government Officials while considering the contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with the earlier orders related to the Karthigai Thiruparankundram Deepam issue. The High Court further stated that law and order cannot be a ground for flouting a court's order.

Cause Title: Rama Ravikumar v. The Executive Officer Arulmigu Subramanian Swamy Temple Thiruparankundram Madurai and Ors. [ Diary No. 4500/2026]