After the prolonged arguments, the hearing was accordingly adjourned to the next day, on Wednesday, 17 December.
Published Dec 16, 2025 | 9:44 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 16, 2025 | 9:44 PM
Tiruppanarankundram in Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
Synopsis: Senior counsel Mohan, appearing for the Dargah side, resumed his submissions at length. The Bench questioned the Dargah counsel on the exact distance between the Dargah and the disputed stone structure, specifically asking whether it was beyond 15 metres. The Judges also sought clarity on the agreement entered into in 1994 between the Dargah side and the temple administration.
The hearing in the Thirupparankundram hilltop Deepa Thoon (lamp pillar) dispute commenced before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, on Tuesday, 16 December, with extensive arguments advanced on behalf of the Dargah management.
Senior counsel Mohan, appearing for the Dargah side, resumed his submissions at length. The Bench questioned the Dargah counsel on the exact distance between the Dargah and the disputed stone structure, specifically asking whether it was beyond 15 metres. The Judges also sought clarity on the agreement entered into in 1994 between the Dargah side and the temple administration.
After the prolonged arguments, the hearing was accordingly adjourned to the next day, on Wednesday, 17 December.
The Dargah counsel submitted that earlier, the temple administration itself had proposed lighting the lamp near the “Kuthirai Chunai” area and that peace committee meetings were convened in connection with the issue. However, permission was ultimately denied.
According to the Dargah side, the consistent stand of the temple administration has been that no one other than the temple authorities should be permitted to light any lamp, and this position, they argued, is also reflected in the agreement between the parties.
It was further contended that organisations such as Hindu Munnani and Hindu Tamilar Katchi had repeatedly filed petitions on the same issue in previous years, and that the present petitioner, Rama Ravikumar, had merely filed an identical petition.
The Dargah counsel stressed that every year the same set of petitioners approach the court, while no other individuals have sought permission to light Karthigai Deepam at the hilltop.
Referring to the disputed structure, the Dargah side argued that there have been multiple and contradictory claims — describing it at times as a survey stone and at other times as a Jain-era pillar — but categorically maintained that, in any event, it is not a “Deepa Thoon.”
It was pointed out that when attempts were made by Hindu Munnani members to light lamps near the Dargah, the District Collector had refused permission and had referred to the structure only as a stone pillar. Whether it is a survey stone or a Jain pillar, the Dargah side asserted, it cannot be treated as a lamp pillar.
The Dargah counsel also referred to earlier incidents at Nellithoppu, where objections were raised by Hindu organisations against Muslims offering prayers, and where objections were also raised regarding alleged animal sacrifice.
It was argued that there is no evidence to support claims of animal sacrifice and that such disputes should be resolved before a civil court. The same principle, according to the Dargah side, applies to the present lamp-lighting dispute.
The Dargah management stated that their customary religious activities are confined to areas around the Dargah and Nellithoppu and that Kandoori and other rituals are conducted strictly within their traditional limits. They emphasised that they do not go beyond those limits. Due to recurring disputes, peace talks are conducted every year between the temple administration and the Dargah side, the counsel submitted.
The Dargah side strongly opposed the order of the single judge which permitted lighting a lamp at a certain distance from the Dargah, stating that such an order is untenable. Referring to the Sikandar Dargah, counsel pointed out that while it is recognised as belonging to Muslims, even basic facilities such as toilets or electricity connections are not permitted, and earlier petitions relating to such rights were directed to be resolved before a civil court.
In contrast, the present case, they argued, resulted in permission being granted for lamp lighting, leading to an inconsistency in judicial approach.
It was reiterated that the structure at the hilltop is not a Deepa Thoon. The Dargah counsel expressed strong objection to observations in the single judge’s order referring to “encroachment” or “invasion,” stating that such remarks were prejudicial and affected the Muslim community. They relied on a 1920 judgment to argue that the Dargah management is still required to establish and protect its rights.
Highlighting broader concerns, the Dargah side submitted that minority communities face repeated obstructions in using areas traditionally allotted to them, particularly at Nellithoppu. At this stage, the Bench cautioned the counsel to confine arguments strictly to issues relevant to the present case.
When the Dargah counsel alleged that petitioner Ram Ravikumar had approached the court at the last minute and obtained relief, the Judges observed that characterising it as a “last-minute relief” was not appropriate. The Dargah side nevertheless argued that approaching the court at the last moment in sensitive religious matters is improper.
The Bench again cautioned counsel against referring to unrelated cases, including a Dindigul matter, and directed them to restrict arguments to the present dispute.
Another senior counsel, Prabhu Rajadurai, appeared for the Dargah side and continued the arguments. The Bench issued a stern warning, directing that only case-specific submissions be made.
Counsel argued that the single judge’s conclusion that lighting a lamp at the disputed stone would not affect the Dargah was unacceptable and contrary to natural justice. They claimed that almost every paragraph of the single judge’s order was objectionable.
It was submitted that after Ram Ravikumar filed the petition, several others filed petitions, inspections were conducted by the single judge, and multiple documents were filed, but the Dargah side was not granted sufficient time to respond.
According to the Dargah counsel, it would not have been possible for the single judge to collect and evaluate all documents and evidence within three days of inspection before passing the order. They further argued that despite the legal provision granting four weeks’ time for filing counter affidavits, no such opportunity was afforded.
Referring to alleged peace talks in 2005, the Dargah side disputed the single judge’s observation that consent had been given to light lamps at a distance of 15 metres from the Dargah. They argued that the boundaries of the Dargah have never been clearly demarcated, and in the absence of such demarcation, the order could not have been validly passed. They clarified that “15 metres” should be measured from the Dargah boundary and not from the structure itself.
The Bench observed that there is a distinction between inspections conducted by officials or commissioners and inspections conducted by a judge for the purpose of adjudication. While the Dargah side insisted that a commissioner ought to have been appointed, the Judges noted that there are precedents permitting judges to personally inspect disputed sites.
The Dargah counsel also pointed out discrepancies in the single judge’s order regarding the distance of the disputed stone, stating that while the stone is within 15 metres of the Dargah, the order refers to it as being 50 metres away.
They further referred to earlier litigation relating to hoisting of flags near the Dargah, where temple authorities had objected to any new practices and had insisted that disputes be resolved through civil courts. They argued that the same principle should apply in the present case.
It was submitted that until a complete survey of the entire Thirupparankundram hill is conducted and Dargah boundaries are clearly demarcated, the impugned order cannot be implemented.
Another counsel for the Dargah side referred to earlier directions by Justice Ilango, which had permitted hoisting of a flag near a tree adjacent to the Dargah for three days. When the Dargah management later decided to hoist the flag year-round, the temple administration objected, stating that such a practice had never existed.
The counsel also highlighted instances of communal harmony in Madurai, including Muslims welcoming Lord Kallazhagar during the Azhagar festival and providing water and assistance to devotees during the Vaigai river ritual.
The Bench enquired about the number of festivals conducted annually at the Dargah, to which the Dargah management replied that the Sandanakoodu festival is conducted, and no other major festivals are held.
The Dargah side concluded by submitting that neither the Dargah management nor the Wakf Board was given adequate legal opportunity to file counter affidavits and that the dispute, being one of title and rights, must be adjudicated only by a civil court. Senior counsel Prabhu Rajadurai then concluded his arguments.
Subsequently, advocate Lajapathi Roy commenced his submissions, referring to an inspection conducted in 1923 by Justice Ramaiyar and cautioning against unnecessary observations. He referred to the post–Babri Masjid demolition context and instances of communal violence, including murder cases, and urged the court to deliver a verdict without giving room for emotional escalation.
The Bench observed that several complex questions arise in the case and that they would all need to be addressed. References were made to inscriptions studied by epigraphist Iravatham Mahadevan, including Brahmi inscriptions and references to Sivakasinthamani, which were noted as Jain-era writings.
After Lajapathi Roy concluded his arguments, a research report submitted by a research scholar on Thirupparankundram was placed before the court. Advocate Vanchinathan, appearing for a petitioner supporting the Dargah side, argued that no one other than the temple administration can interfere in religious practices, citing multiple judicial precedents.
The Bench directed that arguments on behalf of the District Police Commissioner and the Wakf Board be presented the next day, clarified that intervention petitions would not be entertained, and instructed that all arguments must be concluded by the following day.
(With inputs from Subash Chandra Bose)
