High Court Verdict: Overview
On 6 January 2026 a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upheld an earlier order permitting the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam (ceremonial lamp) on the ancient stone pillar (the “Deepathoon”) atop the Thirupparankundram hill.
The bench held that the spot falls within land belonging to the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, rejected the State’s law-and-order concerns as speculative, and framed several protective conditions — including restrictions on public access, supervision by the district administration and the Archaeological Survey of India, and limits on participants and festival practices.
Political And Constitutional Context
This High Court verdict has already provoked political responses and public debate in Tamil Nadu. The State has signalled an intention to challenge the order in the Supreme Court, and the matter now presents a likely test for how the apex court will balance competing constitutional values — freedom of religion, public order, protection of monuments and archaeology, and communal harmony.
Below I set out, in accessible legal language, the background, the key legal questions the Supreme Court would face if it entertains an appeal, and the practical and doctrinal implications a Supreme Court ruling might carry.
1. Short Background — Long Layers Of History And Competing Claims
Thirupparankundram hill is a multilayered sacred space: over centuries it has hosted Saivaite shrines, an important dargah, and other religious associations.
The present dispute arose when devotees sought to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon pillar on the hilltop — a practice the temple side says is traditional — but the administration and some local stakeholders resisted citing law-and-order and overlapping claims of control.
The single-judge order directing the Deepam to be lit was stayed by administrative steps, appeals followed, and the Division Bench has now reaffirmed the single-judge’s direction while adding operational safeguards.
2. Main Legal Questions Likely Before The Supreme Court
Title And Management Of The Disputed Spot
Who has legal ownership or administrative control of the land where the Deepathoon stands — the temple’s devasthanam, the dargah, the Waqf Board, or the State?
The High Court said the pillar lies on temple land and that archaeological antiquity does not automatically create a proprietary monopoly. If the State appeals, the Supreme Court will first examine the factual record and documentary titles.
Constitutional Protection Of Religious Practice (Article 25) Vs. Public Order And Secular Governance
The core constitutional balancing exercise will be whether permitting the Deepam — subject to conditions — is protected religious practice, and whether restrictions (or bans) invoked for “law and order” pass the tests of proportionality and evidence.
The High Court labelled the State’s law-and-order fears an “imaginary ghost”; the Supreme Court will test whether that conclusion rests on adequate material or whether restricting the practice was legitimately preventive.
Role Of Administrative Authorities And Preventive Orders
The case raises the question of how far district collectors and police can use preventive orders and prohibitions to avoid tensions, especially when a court itself directs a practice to be allowed under conditions.
The Supreme Court will be called upon to clarify the interplay between judicial directives and executive law-and-order powers.
Protection Of Monuments And ASI / AMASR Act Concerns
Because the Archaeological Survey of India’s preservation mandate and the Ancient Monuments legislation can limit activities around protected structures, the Court may examine whether allowing a lamp at a particular spot endangers protected remains or breaches the AMASR framework and whether ASI conditions are sufficient.
The High Court already required ASI consultation.
Communal Harmony And Remedial Remedies
The apex court will likely assess whether judicial orders should emphasise mediation and arrangements that preserve harmony — for example, shared schedules or alternative locations — or whether decisive judicial entitlements are appropriate when executive neutrality is questioned.
Some commentators have read the High Court’s decision as a move from mediation to firm adjudication.
Summary Of Issues Likely Before The Supreme Court
| Issue | Core Question |
|---|---|
| Title And Control | Whether the Deepathoon stands on temple land or land controlled by other authorities |
| Religious Freedom | Whether lighting the Karthigai Deepam is protected under Article 25 |
| Public Order | Whether restrictions are justified by real and demonstrable law-and-order concerns |
| Administrative Powers | Extent of executive authority when courts permit religious practices |
| Monument Protection | Compliance with ASI mandates and the AMASR framework |
| Communal Harmony | Whether mediation or firm adjudication best serves constitutional balance |
3. How the Supreme Court Might Approach These Issues (Probable Lines of Reasoning)
Strict Review of Evidence for “Public Order” Claims
The Supreme Court has repeatedly insisted that law-and-order restrictions must be supported by concrete material, not abstract fears. If the State’s apprehensions are weak, the Court may affirm the High Court’s emphasis on rights with reasonable safeguards. Conversely, convincing and specific material indicating possible violence could justify narrowly tailored restrictions. This reflects the Court’s classic constitutional balancing role.
Practical Conditioning Rather Than Absolute Injunctions
Given the fragile coexistence on the hill, the Court may prefer conditional relief instead of an outright injunction. This would mirror the High Court’s approach—recognising the right to perform the ritual while imposing strict administrative safeguards.
- Limited number of participants
- Coordination with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)
- Pre-defined scheduling of rituals
- Clear allocation of policing and security responsibilities
Courts often adopt such calibrated measures in matters involving communal sensitivity, aiming to reduce friction while preserving rights.
Clarifying the Role of Archaeology and Antiquity
The bench may reiterate that historical layers do not automatically extinguish present-day proprietary or devotional rights. At the same time, it is likely to stress the importance of heritage protection. Antiquity, therefore, informs the legal context but does not operate as a self-executing title.
While the High Court relied on this reasoning, the Supreme Court may refine it further by issuing authoritative guidance on how archaeological claims should be assessed and balanced against living religious practices.
Administrative Compliance and the Non-Interference Principle
If the High Court record suggests that the State or its agencies attempted to block or delay the implementation of judicial directions for extraneous reasons, the Supreme Court could issue a stern reminder.
- The supremacy of judicial orders
- The duty of administrators to execute lawful directions
- The parallel obligation to maintain public peace
Legal commentators have already flagged concerns about non-implementation and possible political overtones, which may invite closer scrutiny by the Court.
4. Broader Doctrinal and Practical Implications
Precedent for Multi-Faith Sacred Spaces
A Supreme Court ruling that balances ritual rights with heritage protection and peacekeeping considerations would provide persuasive guidance for similar disputes across India, where sacred sites often overlap with places of worship of different communities.
Limits of “Law and Order” as a Pretext
If the Court reinforces the need for concrete evidence before restricting religious practices, it could significantly constrain executive overreach, particularly where prohibitions are imposed pre-emptively based on vague or speculative claims.
Judicial Role in Fragile Communal Ecosystems
The decision may also clarify whether courts prefer negotiated mediation or decisive adjudication in cases where State neutrality appears doubtful. The High Court’s move towards adjudication already signals judicial impatience with prolonged or ineffective executive mediation.
Heritage Versus Faith: A Fine Balance
This case may further refine how courts weigh archaeological protection obligations under AMASR and ASI mandates against the constitutional right to practise religion. The emphasis is likely to be on workable processes—permissions, limits, and ASI oversight—that can be replicated at other sensitive sites.
5. Practical Advice for Stakeholders (What to Expect)
| Stakeholder | Key Preparatory Steps |
|---|---|
| State and District Administration | Gather and present concrete, dated material if invoking public order concerns Document alternative measures already attempted Coordinate closely with ASI and comply with judicially imposed conditions |
| Temple / Dargah Committees and Devotees | Document historical and continuous usage Prepare a clear implementation plan with limited personnel Propose safety, crowd-control, and mediation-oriented arrangements |
| Supreme Court (If Seised of the Matter) | Blend recognition of entitlement with strong procedural safeguards Adopt an outcome that is sustainable and enforceable on the ground |
6. Closing Reflection
The Thirupparankundram dispute is not merely about a lamp on a hill. It represents a concentrated test of how India’s legal system manages overlapping histories, community sentiment, executive responsibility, and constitutional rights.
If the Supreme Court takes up the matter, its ruling will be closely watched not only in Tamil Nadu but across the country. The judgment could either provide a replicable template for resolving disputes over shared sacred spaces or firmly caution authorities against the overuse of preventive restrictions on religious practice.
For the present, the High Court’s order forms the operative baseline. The Supreme Court’s eventual role—should it intervene—will be to refine legal doctrine, verify contested facts, and shape a practical and lawful roadmap for coexistence.
Focused Legal Brief
Proposed Appeal / Special Leave Petition arising from the Thirupparankundram (Deepathoon) verdict
I. Core Issues Likely Before the Supreme Court
| Sl. No. | Issue |
|---|---|
| 1 | Whether permitting lighting of Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions. |
| 2 | Whether the State can prohibit or indefinitely restrain a religious practice on speculative “law and order” grounds without concrete material. |
| 3 | Determination of land control and management—temple land vs. waqf claim vs. State/ASI oversight. |
| 4 | Interplay between religious practice and heritage protection under the AMASR framework and ASI supervision. |
| 5 | Limits of executive discretion vis-à-vis compliance with judicial directions. |
II. Suggested Arguments & Authorities — Party-Wise
A. State of Tamil Nadu
1. Principal Submissions
- Public Order Supremacy
Article 25 is expressly subject to public order. In communally sensitive zones, the State has a preventive duty, not merely a reactive one. - Administrative Expertise & Deference
Courts should show restraint in substituting judicial satisfaction for the Collector’s and police’s assessment of ground realities. - Composite Religious Character of the Hill
Thirupparankundram is not an exclusively Hindu ritual space; unilateral assertion of ritual dominance risks disturbing long-standing equilibrium. - Heritage & Safety Concerns
Fire, crowd movement, and ritual activity at elevated archaeological structures raise legitimate safety and conservation risks.
2. Authorities to Rely Upon
- Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966) – distinction between “law and order” and “public order,” but also State’s preventive powers.
- Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994) – places of worship are not immune from regulation.
- Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020) – no protest or activity can override public order and administrative authority.
- Church of God (Full Gospel) v. KKR Majestic Colony Welfare Assn. (2000) – religious practice subject to noise, safety, and public order regulations.
3. Relief Likely to Be Sought
- Stay or modification of the High Court order.
- Direction permitting alternative arrangements or symbolic observance at a neutral location.
- Empowering district administration with final discretion each year.
B. Temple / Hindu Devotees (Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple Side)
1. Principal Submissions
- Established Religious Practice
Lighting of Karthigai Deepam is an integral, time-honoured practice, not a newly invented assertion. - Speculative Law & Order Is Insufficient
State must demonstrate clear, present, and proximate danger, not abstract apprehension. - Land & Control Evidence
Revenue records and temple documents establish the Deepathoon as lying on temple land; antiquity ≠ ownership by default. - Proportionality Doctrine
Complete restraint is disproportionate when regulated permission (limited participants, police supervision, ASI safeguards) is feasible.
2. Authorities to Rely Upon
- Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (Shirur Mutt case, 1954) – protection of essential religious practices.
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) – State cannot suppress religious freedom on hypothetical fears.
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) – restrictions must satisfy necessity and proportionality.
- Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay (1954) – freedom of religion extends to acts done in pursuance of belief.
3. Relief Likely to Be Sought
- Affirmation of High Court verdict.
- Directions binding the State to facilitate, not frustrate, the ritual.
- Clear compliance timelines and accountability of officials.
C. Dargah / Muslim Stakeholders (Including Possible Waqf Claims)
1. Principal Submissions
- Shared Sacred Space Doctrine
The hill is a composite religious site; exclusive ritual assertion risks marginalising another community’s long-standing presence. - Waqf / Possessory Rights
Even absent title, continuous religious association creates protectable interests under constitutional and statutory law. - Equality & Non-Discrimination (Articles 14 & 15)
State facilitation of one ritual must not result in indirect exclusion or symbolic subordination of another faith. - Risk of Communal Polarisation
Courts must adopt a harm-avoidance approach in multi-faith contexts.
2. Authorities to Rely Upon
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) – secularism as basic structure; State neutrality in religious matters.
- Adithyan v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2002) – inclusiveness and equality in religious spaces.
- M. Ismail Faruqui line of cases (limited reliance) – regulation of religious sites permissible in larger public interest.
- Narayan Chandra Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (2011) – protection of minority religious practices.
3. Relief Likely to Be Sought
- Directions ensuring non-exclusivity and protection of dargah access and dignity.
- Court-monitored protocol preventing communal symbolism or slogans.
- Mediation or jointly agreed operational guidelines.
III. Likely Judicial Approach of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is unlikely to adopt an all-or-nothing stance. Based on precedent, it may:
- Affirm the right to perform the ritual,
- Subject it to strict, enforceable conditions (numbers, timing, ASI supervision, police protocol), and
- Lay down a structured framework for recurring management of multi-faith sacred spaces.
This would align with the Court’s consistent preference for constitutional balance over absolutism.
IV. Doctrinal Significance
- Reinforces proportionality as the controlling test for religious restrictions.
- Clarifies that executive convenience cannot override judicially recognised rights.
- Creates a guiding precedent for shared sacred sites across India.
Closing Note
The Thirupparankundram dispute, when it reaches the Supreme Court, will not merely test local administration—it will test the maturity of Indian constitutional secularism, where faith, history, and governance intersect. A carefully conditioned affirmation of rights, rather than suppression or triumphalism, is the jurisprudential path most consistent with the Court’s legacy.
