The Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench on 6 January 2026 upheld a single judge’s order permitting the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp at the Deepathoon, a stone pillar atop Thiruparankundram hill. The court directed that the temple administration, not the general public, should perform the ritual, and that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) may impose conditions to protect the site.
The order followed appeals by state authorities and religious bodies challenging the earlier directive.
According to Live Law, the division bench of Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan found no substantial evidence that Agama Shastra prohibited the lighting of the lamp at the site. The court described the state’s law and order concerns as an “imaginary ghost” and stated that such apprehensions were not supported by facts.
As reported by Deccan Herald, the bench criticised the state government and district administration for opposing the lamp lighting on grounds of potential disturbance to peace.
The court clarified that the tradition could continue annually, but only temple officials would be allowed to participate, not the general public.
As highlighted by The Indian Express, the court’s order was in response to appeals against Justice G R Swaminathan’s earlier decision, which had allowed devotees to light the lamp at the Deepathoon.
The court noted that the practice did not infringe on the rights of the nearby dargah and that only certain portions of the hill belonged to the dargah, with the Deepathoon area under temple control.
As noted in an article by Bar and Bench, the bench rejected arguments that the lamp lighting could disrupt public order, stating, “We find that the apprehension expressed by the district administration regarding probability of disturbance of public peace is nothing but an imaginary ghost created by them for their convenience sake and to put one community against another community under suspicion and constant mistrust.”
“We want a peaceful coexistence of both the parties. That can be done if there is some kind of understanding and uniformity. Please go through the order ... We say Constitution, natural resources, is common to all. Everyone should have freedom of religion without disturbing the other,” the bench stated.
This report noted, the dispute centred on the ownership and usage rights of the hill, which houses both Hindu temples and the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah. The Subramaniya Swamy Temple cited a 1920 court ruling supporting its claim over the Deepathoon, while the dargah maintained rights over its own structures.
The court’s decision followed arguments from state officials, the dargah, and the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, who contended that the lamp lighting was not a customary practice and could affect communal harmony. However, as this report noted, the bench found no evidence disproving the Deepathoon’s traditional use for the Karthigai Deepam festival.
The court also addressed the pending contempt proceedings, as the lamp was not lit on the festival day despite the single judge’s order. This article mentioned that the district administration had prevented devotees from accessing the site, citing public order concerns, which the court ultimately dismissed as unfounded.
“Ridiculous and hard to believe the fear of mighty state that by allowing representatives of devasthanam to light a lamp at the stone pillar on a particular day in a year will cause disturbance to public peace. Of course, it may happen only if such a disturbance is sponsored by the state itself,” the bench observed.
This report highlighted that the court directed the District Collector to coordinate and supervise the event, and that the number of participants would be determined in consultation with the ASI and police. The court emphasised that its guidelines aimed to enable both Hindu and Muslim communities to celebrate their respective festivals peacefully at the hillock.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.