Madras HC Restores Deepam Ritual at Thiruparankundram

New Delhi, january 06, 2026: In a landmark verdict that has resonated across Tamil Nadu, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld a single-judge’ order permitting the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the historic Deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) atop the Thiruparankundram hillock.

The decision, delivered in early January 2026, marks the culmination of a high-profile legal battle involving religious rights, historical claims, and administrative authority.

The Core of the Verdict: Why Permission Was Granted

The Division Bench, comprising Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan, affirmed the earlier ruling of Justice G.R. Swaminathan. The court’s reasoning for allowing the ritual was based on several critical legal and factual findings:

1. Recognition of Religious Freedom

The Court ruled that lighting a lamp at an elevated spot is an “essential religious practice” within the Hindu tradition, specifically intended to allow devotees at the foothills to witness and worship the light. The bench found no “plausible reason” for the temple management to deny this request from devotees, viewing it as a restoration of a traditional practice.

2. Ownership of the Land

A pivotal point in the case was the location of the Deepathoon. The Court clarified that the pillar is situated on land belonging exclusively to the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple Devasthanam. It rejected claims that the pillar was part of the neighboring Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah, calling such submissions “mischievous” and aimed at creating communal mistrust.

3. Rejecting “Speculative” Law and Order Concerns

The Tamil Nadu government and temple administration had opposed the ritual, citing potential communal disharmony due to the pillar’s proximity (approximately 50 meters) to the Dargah. However, the High Court slammed this stance, famously describing the state’s apprehension as an “imaginary ghost.” The judges noted:

• Public order should not be used as a “talisman” to defeat constitutional guarantees.
• A sacred act like lighting a lamp should not, by itself, offend any community’s sensibilities.

Historical Context and Controversy

The Thiruparankundram hill is a site of unique religious coexistence, housing both a prominent Hindu temple (one of the six abodes of Lord Murugan) and a 17th-century Dargah.

• The “Deepathoon” Debate: While petitioners argued the pillar had been used for lighting lamps for over 1,300 years until British-era restrictions halted it, some experts and the state argued the pillar was merely a British-era survey stone. The Court, however, maintained that the physical structure was designed to hold a lamp and was located on temple property.
• The 2025 Incident: The controversy peaked in December 2025 when the state failed to implement the single-judge’s order, leading to a dramatic evening video conference where the judge authorized the petitioner to light the lamp under CISF protection.

Strict Conditions for the Ritual

While granting permission, the High Court was mindful of the site’s status as a protected monument and the need for security. To ensure the ritual does not lead to chaos, the following conditions were imposed:

Condition	Description
No Public Access	The general public is not allowed to ascend to the hilltop for the ceremony.
Official Supervision	The District Collector must supervise the event, while the ASI and police decide who can climb the hill for the ritual.
Monument Protection	The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) can impose specific conditions to ensure the stone structure is not damaged.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s decision is seen as a significant victory for those seeking to revive ancient traditions. By decoupling “law and order” from “religious practice,” the court has sent a clear message: the state’s duty is to facilitate the exercise of rights rather than suppressing them under the guise of security.

The ruling sets a precedent for how shared religious sites can be managed, emphasizing that mediation and historical records—rather than administrative prohibitions—should guide communal coexistence.