Counsel for the temple administration informed the court that matters relating to temple customs and procedures fall strictly under the authority of the HR&CE Department and the temple administration.
Published Dec 12, 2025 | 7:46 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 12, 2025 | 7:46 PM
Tiruppanarankundram in Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
Synopsis: The Bench repeatedly sought factual clarity, questioning whether the disputed pillar was ever verified as a lamp pillar and asking whether the temple administration had the authority to shift the lamp-lighting spot. The judges also asked why a lamp visible to all devotees should not be allowed if that was the petitioner’s concern. They noted that the dispute had existed in various forms since the 1920s and said a permanent, practical solution was overdue, remarking that avoidable ego clashes were worsening the controversy.
The Madras High Court Division Bench of Justices Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan on Friday, 12 December, heard the appeals challenging the recent single-judge order permitting the Karthigai Deepam to be lit on the hilltop pillar at Thirupparankundram.
At the outset, the judges refused to entertain intervention petitions and observed that if the real intention is to find a lasting solution, all parties must remain calm and avoid escalating tensions.
The State, represented by Advocate General P.S. Raman along with senior advocates Shanmugasundaram, Veerakathiravan and Ravindran, argued that the single-judge order was unsustainable.
They submitted that for over seven decades, the traditional Karthigai Deepam has always been lit at the mandapam near the Uchi Pillaiyar temple and never on the hilltop pillar.
They pointed out that the petitioner, Rama Ravikumar, had filed the case purely as an individual and had produced no document to show that the structure on the hilltop is a traditional lamp pillar.
The hill also houses a dargah, and the government warned that allowing a new practice near the dargah without historical basis would create unnecessary communal tension. The State further said earlier Benches had already dismissed similar requests, but the single judge disregarded these earlier findings.
The Bench repeatedly sought factual clarity, questioning whether the disputed pillar was ever verified as a lamp pillar and asking whether the temple administration had the authority to shift the lamp-lighting spot.
The judges also asked why a lamp visible to all devotees should not be allowed if that was the petitioner’s concern.
They noted that the dispute had existed in various forms since the 1920s and said a permanent, practical solution was overdue, remarking that avoidable ego clashes were worsening the controversy.
Senior advocate Shanmugam, appearing for the temple administration, argued that the petitioner’s request was not related to the traditional Karthigai Deepam at all and that a single judge had issued directions as if adjudicating a public interest matter.
He insisted that only the temple administration has the authority to decide where the Deepam should be lit, citing earlier orders, including that of Justice Kanagaraj, which held that the temple may change the place in accordance with established rules.
He maintained that there is no historical record identifying the hilltop structure as a Deepam pillar.
The Bench reviewed parts of Justice G.R. Swaminathan’s earlier order and questioned whether the matter had ever involved temple property disputes. The State argued that the single judge had incorrectly relied on comparisons with the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi case and reiterated that the hilltop pillar is barely 15 metres from the dargah, raising serious law-and-order considerations.
Counsel for the temple administration informed the court that matters relating to temple customs and procedures fall strictly under the authority of the HR&CE Department and the temple administration.
The HR&CE Commissioner has reportedly stated that the decision on whether the Karthigai Deepam should be lit at the hilltop location can only be taken by the temple administration.
The judges pointed out that in an earlier case, the court had already said the temple could decide on lighting the lamp at an alternative location. They asked whether the single judge’s order is consistent with that previous ruling.
The temple’s counsel stated that if petitioner Ram Ravikumar wants the Deepam to be lit at a different location, he must submit a formal request to the Joint Commissioner. They explained that his earlier petition was rejected because the temple authorities have the power to make decisions on such matters.
They also argued that the single judge had noted that one Deepam is already lit at the Uchipillaiyar Temple, and then directed that from this year, Deepam should be lit at two locations. The temple contended that courts should not order the adoption of new practices when a long-standing custom exists.
Multiple petitions have requested orders to permit lighting the lamp at the Deepathoon (lamp pillar) instead of, or in addition to, the Uchipillaiyar Temple. The HR&CE side argued that long-standing temple practice cannot be altered as a matter of right.
The judges first asked why the petitioner had not forwarded his representation to the Joint Commissioner as required, and why the Executive Officer alone had taken a decision in a matter concerning the hilltop.
The temple administration argued that many claims accepted by the single judge were not part of the original petition. They said the judge assumed the structure near the dargah was a lamp pillar without any proof and directed lighting Deepam on a pillar “that is not a lamp pillar at all.”
The temple maintained that the pillar is merely an eight-foot granite stone. They emphasised that there is no evidence of Deepam being lit on that structure for 175 years. They also said two separate peaks exist: one housing the dargah and the other the Uchipillaiyar shrine. Earlier court findings, they said, had already declared the dargah hilltop as property belonging to the dargah, creating jurisdictional issues.
The government supported this, stating that the structure is a survey stone, not a lamp post. They reiterated that the Deepam has always been lit at the Uchipillaiyar temple and never near the dargah.
The Bench questioned how such a column could have been placed there if it were truly a lamp pillar, asking, “Would anyone have thrown it up there? Who constructed it?”
The petitioner’s counsel disputed the claim that Uchipillaiyar is on a separate peak, asserting that it lies above the sanctum of the Subramanyaswami shrine.
They also argued that the petitioner could not claim a legal right to have the Deepam lit at a place of his choosing—and similarly, that the single judge could not dictate where the lamp should be lit.
The judges remarked that in many temples, including Tiruvanaikaval and Kalahasti, Deepam practices vary according to traditions and faith, and courts should not question religious beliefs. They noted, however, that the factual nature of the pillar must be determined by experts, not by temple officials or assumptions.
The temple warned that the eight-foot stone could not support large lamps like those at Tiruvannamalai, and that heat and flames could endanger the nearby dargah. They said the single judge had hurried the order even though the festival occurs every year and did not require emergency directions.
The Bench concluded that these factual and procedural questions must be thoroughly examined before any directions are issued.
They observed that the temple’s Executive Officer and other officials had faced legal challenges because earlier directions were not implemented, and questioned why an earlier request under Justice Kanagaraj’s order had not been considered.
The hearing was adjourned, with the judges saying that the Letters Patent Appeals would be taken up on Monday for further detailed arguments. No interim orders were passed.
(Edited by Sumavarsha)
