Introduction:
Karthigai Deepam is a festival celebrated at large scale in Outhern part of Bharat mostly by Hindu Tamils as well as by followers in Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka and Sri Lanka. Outside of Tamil nade, Tiruvannamalai also known as Arunchala about 180 Kms from Chennai, where this celebration has been observed since time immemorial. Karthika is considered as an auspicious Tamil month during which Lord Shiva is being worshipped in the form of Agni and Arumugam and Lord Vishnu, the guardian deity. The vital element of the festival is the lightening of Kuthuvilakku (Oil Lamps) in every home and temples. The concerned practice is being followers because the light is considered auspicious, purifying and symbolizes the invocation of divine light into one’s life. It is also a coincidence that the festival coincide with the divine birth of Lord Murugan, son of Lord Shiva as it is being believed firmly that Lord Murugan was born out of the divine fire emanating from Lord Shiva third eyes thus marking knowledge over ignorance as when Murugan was born through the divine flame, it is then a victory of the divine energy over evil powers and when lamps are being lit during the festival, it symbolizes calling of light into one’s life. Karthigai Deepam holds the historical significance in the Tamil literature and other wriiten records. Historical evidences suggest that it has been held for more than 2000 years. Sangam Literature, earliest Tamil literature holds the record and reference of the celebration of light. It is further submitted that the traditional Tamil texts “Ahananuru” describes the custom of lightening candles in the karthigai month.
It is well established fact that the tradition Karthigai Deepam is much older traditional practice in Sanatan Dharma much before the birth of political parties but recent controversy erupts when Hindu traditional practice required the intervention of the Madras Hugh Court just because the current ruling DMK government refuse to comply with the Hon’ble Madras High Court order and refuse to allow the ceremonial lamp to be lit at the hilltop Deepathoon. It is important to analayse the Hon’ble Madurai Bench Court order so as to understand the controversy and violation of the Right to Worship of Hindus as deemed to be the Fundamental Right by the DMK government in the guise of law and order.
Rama Ravikumar Vs. District Collector and Ors W.P. Nos. 32317,33112,33197,33724,34051 of 2025 And WMP (MD) Nos. 25422, 26867 & 26906 of 2025
Reserved on: 28.11.2025
Pronounced on: 01.12.20215
Coram: The Hon’ble Justice G.R.Swaminathan
Parties in Writ Petition:
Petitioner: Rama Ravikmumar (Devout Follower of Lord Muruga)
Respondents:
- District Collector
- Commissioner of Police, Madurai City
- Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Madurai
- Executive Officer, Subramaniya Swamy Temple
- Representatives of Sikandar Badhusha Dargah
- Superintending Archaeologist, ASI, Trichy Circle
- Commissioner, HR&CE Chennai Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, represented by its CEO
The concerned Writ Petition bearing no. as 32317 of 2025 has been tagged along with other writ petitions of which numbers have been mentioned herein above having the same prayer in the Writ Petition as pleading to the Hon’ble Court to exercise Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take all necessary steps and make appropriate arrangements to light the sacred karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (Ancient Stone Lamp Pillar) situated atop the Thirupparankundram Hill in accordance with the age old religious practice of Arulmighu Subramaniyaswamy Temple, Madurai so that residents and Devotees of Madurai District may receive the divine vision of the sacred flame from top of the Hill.
Verdict: The verdict has been deliverd by the Hon’ble Justice G.R.Swaminathan, directing the Subramaniya Swamy temple management under the HR&CE Department to light the ceremonial lamp at the ancient stone pillar duly known as Deepathoon in addition to the other usual designated locations. The hin’ble Bench has issued a clear and firm directive to the HR&CE department duly managed by the Subramaniya Swamy temple to light the Deepam at the Deepathoon, which he described as “Well established, customary tradition supported by overwhelming literary and historical evidences”.
It is very significant to mention herein that the Hon’ble Judge has taken the refr3ence to substantiate the Judgement of Sangam Literature, which is the earliest Tamil literature, while referring that the Thiruparnkundaram Hill has been associated with Lord Murugan “since time immemorial”. He also quoted poems from Aga Nanooru, specifically song 59 and 149, duly composed over 1800 years ago.
Dispute concerned:
Petitioner herein namely Ram Ravikumar has applied with the Executive Officer of Subramnia Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, seeking permission to light the Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon in response thereto the Executive officer of the temple responded that the Karthigai Deepam would be lit in the Deepa Mandapam near the Uchi Pillyar Temple, which is duly located halfway up the hill. It is thereby the denial of permission to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon has been challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Court so as to direct the respondents to light the Karthigai Deepam on the Deepathoon (Stone Lamp Pillar) which is located on one of the peaks of the Thiruppankundram Hill.
Counter Affidavit filed By: Commissioner, HR&CE, Executive Officer of the Temple and the Managing Trustee of the Dharga.
Question of Consideration: Whether the Temple Management can be directed to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon.
Objection by the Respondents in the case, also be considered as Issues:
A. Subramania Temple is located at the foot of the hill and Dargah is located at the Hill Top. There is another temple dedicated to Lord Shiva which is located in the midway. There is plain surface just below the Hill Top known as Nellithoppu where Tombs are being situated. Dispute arose between temple management and Dargah which were duly the subject matter of Civil Suits as provided below:
- O.S. 4 of 1920 before First Additional Sub Judge of Madura.
- O.S. 111 of 1958 before Sub Court, Madurai
- O.S. 39 of 2011 before District Munsif, Thirumangalam
It has been objected by the Respondents until the issue of Demarcation and boundaries being duly adjudicated till then it would not be possible to adjudicate on the concerned issue in the Writ Petitions.
B. No locus Standi of the Write Petitioners.
C. Lamp is being lit near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple. Near the temple there is a pillar for lightening the lamp and this practice is not contrary to Agamas (scriptures). It is therefore Temple management that must decide the place of lightening.
D. If there has been any breach of custom then the onus to proof the breach is on the petitioners. They must avail the remedy under Section 63 of the HR&CR Act before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner.
E. The Hon’ble Single Bench has already dealt with the issue in W.P. No. 19422 of 2014 vide order dated 04.12.2014, which has been duly upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 07.12.2017 in WP. No. 1524 of 2014 and therefore principle of Res Judicata will apply herein.
F. The Petitioners want to create communal trouble and vitiate the tranquil atmosphere prevailing in Madurai.
G. Granting permission would be contrary to the provisions of Places of Worship Act.
Observations of the Hon’ble Court on the issues concerned:
Historical Perspective:
The Hon’ble Court produced in the concerned order that Thirupparankundram hill has been duly associated with Lord Muruga since ages and from very time immemorial. Hon’ble court also referred while touching the historical perspective of Karthigai Deepam tradition Aga Nanooru very ancient Tamil Poem and earliest Tamil literature namely Sangam literature. While referring the same the Hon’ble Court also referred Solomon Pappaiah’s commentary which duly states that it refers to Murugan’s hill.
Para 8: “……Thirupparankundram Hill has been associated with Lord Muruga since ages and from time immemorial. Aga Nanooru is an anthology of very ancient Tamil Poems and belongs to what is known as Sangam Literature…..”
“…..Solomon Pappaiah’s commentary states that it refers to Murugan’s hill……”
Litigation History of the Matter:
A. There is a temple at the foot of the hill and another Temple is on the halfway. The Dargah is situated at the top of the Hill, also the toms have been dedicated to Muslims below the hilltop and Dargah. Friction for the same have been arose, which was duly decided by the learned judge in the case bearing number as O.S. No. 4 of 1920 vide order dated 25. 08.1923.
Nature of the Suit: It was filed by the Temple Management for Declaration, Injunction and recovery of possession. Local body as well as Dargah Management were also the defendants in the suit. It was before the Additional Sub Judge of Madura.
Findings of the court:
- Plainitiff (Temple) is the owner and have been in the possession of the whole of Tirruoarankundram hill and Giri Veedhi excepting assessed and occupied land.
- Mohammdans defendant are owners and are in possession of the Nellitope.
- Kashiviswanathaswamy temple and Theertham belongs to the plaintiff.
- Plaintiff is entitled to the trees on either sides of the Giri Veedhi and on the hill excepting belongs to the private owners.
Para 10:
“…..“(1) That the Plaintiff is the owner and has been in possession of the whole of Tirupparankundram hill and the Ghiri Veedhi, excepting assessed and occupied lands, the Nellitope, including the new mantapam, the flight of steps leading from the Nellitope up to the mosque and the top of the rock on which the mosque and the flagstaff of the Muhammadans stand;
(2) that the Muhammadan Defendants 3, 4 and 8 to 13 are owners and are in possession of the Nellitope with all that it contains, the flight of steps mentioned above, the new mantapam and the whole of the top of the hillock on which the mosque and the flagstaff stand;
(3) that the mantapam referred to in paragraph III (d) of the plaint is a new one put up on the site of an old one as contended by the Muhammadans;
(4) that the Kasiviswanathaswamy temple and Theertham belong to Plaintiff;
(5) that the Ghiri Veedhi and other streets referred to in paragraph III(a) of the plaint are vested in the 2nd Defendant that the Plaintiff is not entitled to Sannadhi streets, but it is entitled to the Ghiri Veedhi subject to the rights of the 2nd Defendant under the Madras Local Boards Act; and
(6) that the Plaintiff is entitled to the trees on the sides of the Ghiri Veedhi and on the hill excepting such as belong to private owners…..”
Observation in order of Learned Trial Judge:
The leaned court observed in its order that 1909 Government Order state that the whole of the hillrock is worshipped by the Hindu Community as a Linga. It has also been observed by the Learned Trial Court that hill has been from time immemorial and deemed sacred by the Hindus. The hill was an endowed property of the temple management. It has been clearly and firmly mentioned in the order that “The Devasthnam was recognized as the owner of the hill”. It has been duly mentioned by the learned Trial Court that when the government issued notification under the Madras Forest Act, Thirupprankundram hill was expressly excluded.
Para: 11: “……1909 Government Order which states that the whole hillock is worshipped by the Hindu community as a Linga, the learned Judge found that the hill has been from pre-historic times deemed sacred by the Hindus and that it is essentially a Hindu place of worship…….”
“……the holiness of which is found mentioned in Hindu works older than the advent of the Prophet in Arabia. The hill was an endowed property of the temple management…..”
“…….There is no record to show that the hill itself was seized during Muslim
conquest. When the government issued notification under Madras Forest Act, Thirupprankundram hill was expressly excluded……”
The learned Trial Court have also mentioned in its order that the mosque is located at the top of the hill and the Hindu God Subramnia is at the base of the lower of two peaks. The mosque is known as Sikkanthar Pallivasal. Th learned court mentioned that mosque was probably a small memorial but later extended so as to occupy the whole of the top of Hill rock. Also the establishment of the mosque higher then the Temple reflects the religious fervor, frenzy or rivalry.
Para 12: “……the mosque is located at the top of the hill that is on the topmost peak of the hill…..”
“……The Hindu God Subramaniya is at the base of the lower of the two peaks. The mosque is at the top of the higher peak. The mosque is known as Sikkanthar Pallivasal. The mosque was probably a small memorial originally but later extended so as to occupy the whole of the top of the particular hillock. The establishment of the mosque at a higher place than the Hindu shrine might have been due to religious fervor, frenzy or rivalry……”
B. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.1923, Dargah Trustees of the mosques filed A.S. 34 of 1924 before the Madras High Court. Hon’ble Division Bench reversed the judgement of the learned Trial Court and dismissed the Suit on dated 04.05.1926. The temple management approached to the highest court then Privy Council, which duly set aside the Hon’ble High Court order and upheld the learned Trial Court Decision while observing that the unoccupied portion of the hill has been in the possession of the temple from time immemorial and has been treated by the temple authorities as their property and thereafter privy Council restored the Learned Trial Court’s decree.
Para17: “…….The Privy council observed that the construction of the mosque was an infliction which the Hindus might well have been forced to put up with. But this was no evidence that the remainder of the hill was expropriated from the Hindus. The unoccupied portion of the hill has been in the possession of the temple from time immemorial and has been treated by the temple authorities as their property……”
C. Dargah trustee started construction of a building and had also cut down 600-800 stones against which Temple management has filed O.S. No. 111 of 1958 of injunction and damages, which was duly disposed of on dated 02.12.1959 and restrained the trustees of mosques from cutting stones of any rock outside Nellitope and assessed as well as occupied area. Aggrieved which Dargah trustee filed A.S. 90 of 1960 before the District Court, which duly held that demarcation may be done on the execution proceeding. Thereafter Execution Peition no. 163 of 1962, which was duly disposed with the direction as:
1. Permanent Injuction as granted to the Plaintill not operate as regards to the Nellitope including Pond.
2. Respondents shall have the right of way to the pond from the flat space.
Para 18: E.P was disposed of as follows :
“1.That the permanent injunction granted to the petitioner / plaintiff in this suit, shall not operate as regards the Nellitope including the pond;
2.That the respondents / defendants shall have a right of way to the pond from the flat space with trees and tombs indicated in the ‘C’ sketch, attached hereto;….”
D. Writ Petition by Hindu Bakthajana Sabhai bearing number as 18884 of 1994 was filed which was duly disposed of on 21.11.1996 with following terms as.
1. Parties shall recognize and respect the decree of the Sub Court, Madurai in O.S. 4 of 1920.
2. Devasthanam being the owner of the hill, shall alone light the Deepam in Thirupparankundram hill.
3. It is open to the Devsthanam to permit the lightening of the Deepam in the future years at any place in Thirupparankundram hill with prior permission of the Authorities under Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959.
4. If any other person seeks for permission to light Deepam or if the Devasthanam itself wants to light Deepam at any other place then due regard to the nearness of the Dargah be given and only choose suitable place atleast 15 meters away form the Dargah.
Para 20:
“1.The parties shall remember, recognise and respect the decree of the Sub Court, Madurai in O.S.No.4 of 1920;
2.The Devasthanam, which is the owner of the hill to the extent indicated in the abovesaid decree shall alone light the Deepam in Thirupparankundram hill and they alone shall light the Deepam ordinarily in the traditional place of the Mandapam at Subramaniyaswami Temple near Uchipillaiyar Kovil…..”
3. ….it is open to the Devasthanam to permit the lighting of the Deepam for future years at any place in Thirupprankundram Hill with the prior permission of the Authorities under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959;
and
4.While permitting any other person to light the Deepam in any other place or if the Devasthanam itself wants to light the Deepam in any other place they shall have due regard to the nearness of the Dargah and only choose a suitable place atleast 15 meters away from the Dargah, the flight of steps and the Nellithope area, and places declared…”
Finding on Locus Standi of the Petitioner By Hon’ble High Court: Para 21
The Hon’ble Court observed in the finding subject to the issue of the locus standi meaning thereby whether the petitioners has any right being affected or right to approach before the Hon’ble Court for the permission to light Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon or not. It is significant to mention here that the Hon’ble Court has mentioned that the Petitioner falls under the category of “Persons having Interest” under section 6(15) of the Tamil Nadu HR &CE Act of 1959
Section 6(15) of the Act of 1959 herein reproduced:
“in the case of a temple, as a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the distribution of gifts thereat”
It is therefore petitioners are falling under the category of “Persons Having Interest” as per section 6(15) of the Act. The Hon’ble Bench to substantiate it has also referred the case of T.K. Saminathan Vs. The Special Commissioner of Land Administration, 2011 (4) CTC 48 whereby it was duly held that a devotee of a temple has locus standi as he is a person interested.
Petitioner must be called upon to move to the civil court to file suit for demarcation: Para 23
The Hon’ble Court while responding to the concerned issue has categorically stated in its order that it is not the case of the contesting respondent that the petitioner has to light the Deepam in the Nellitope area. It is also being mentioned that Nellitope area has already being demarcated and therefore question to approach to the civil court do not rise herein.
Para 20:
“1.The parties shall remember, recognise and respect the decree of the Sub Court, Madurai in O.S.No.4 of 1920;
2.The Devasthanam, which is the owner of the hill to the extent indicated in the abovesaid decree shall alone light the Deepam in Thirupparankundram hill and they alone shall light the Deepam ordinarily in the traditional place of the Mandapam at Subramaniyaswami Temple near Uchipillaiyar Kovil…..”
3. ….it is open to the Devasthanam to permit the lighting of the Deepam for future years at any place in Thirupprankundram Hill with the prior permission of the Authorities under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959;
and
4.While permitting any other person to light the Deepam in any other place or if the Devasthanam itself wants to light the Deepam in any other place they shall have due regard to the nearness of the Dargah and only choose a suitable place atleast 15 meters away from the Dargah, the flight of steps and the Nellithope area, and places declared…”
Finding on Locus Standi of the Petitioner By Hon’ble High Court: Para 21
The Hon’ble Court observed in the finding subject to the issue of the locus standi meaning thereby whether the petitioners has any right being affected or right to approach before the Hon’ble Court for the permission to light Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon or not. It is significant to mention here that the Hon’ble Court has mentioned that the Petitioner falls under the category of “Persons having Interest” under section 6(15) of the Tamil Nadu HR &CE Act of 1959
Section 6(15) of the Act of 1959 herein reproduced:
“in the case of a temple, as a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the distribution of gifts thereat”
It is therefore petitioners are falling under the category of “Persons Having Interest” as per section 6(15) of the Act. The Hon’ble Bench to substantiate it has also referred the case of T.K. Saminathan Vs. The Special Commissioner of Land Administration, 2011 (4) CTC 48 whereby it was duly held that a devotee of a temple has locus standi as he is a person interested.
Petitioner must be called upon to move to the civil court to file suit for demarcation: Para 23
The Hon’ble Court while responding to the concerned issue has categorically stated in its order that it is not the case of the contesting respondent that the petitioner has to light the Deepam in the Nellitope area. It is also being mentioned that Nellitope area has already being demarcated and therefore question to approach to the civil court do not rise herein.
Para 23: “……It is not the case of the contesting respondents that the petitioners want to light Deepam in Nellithope area. When Nellithope had already been demarcated and the site of lighting the lamp is not in Nellithope area, there is no need to go to civil court yet again. The civil courts have already conclusively decided the issue. The temple management had to file suits subsequently only because the trustees of the mosque tried to disturb the existing arrangement…..”
The present Writ Petition and present round of litigation is hit by Res Judicata:
The Hon’ble Bench rejected the very objection of the respondents subject to Res Judicata as the respondents relying on the Order of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the Writ Petitioner bearing number as 19422 of 2014 whereby the Hon’ble Court rejected the prayer of the Petitioner as seeking permission to light the Deepam at the Hill Top. It is significant to mention herein that in the present petition the prayer is not the same and therefore principle of Res Judicata not applied. It is important to mention herein that in the present petition the Petitioners saught relief to light the Deepam at Deepathoon and not at the hill Top.
The Privy council has already held that the unoccupied portion of the hill belongs to the Hindus. Deepathoon is located at a lower peak at a distance of not less then 50 meters from the mosque and therefore it is concluded that the Deepathoon is unoccupied portion belongs to the Temple.
Para 24: “…..They only want the lighting of the lamp at the Deepathoon. Deepathoon is not at the hilltop. There are two peaks. The mosque is at the highest peak. The Deepathoon is at the lower peak. The trial Judge in O.S No.4 of 1920 himself recognized that while the mosque is at the highest peak, the Hindu God Subramaniya is at the base of the lower of the two peaks. Deepathoon is not an occupied portion of the Muslims. The Privy Council had held that the unoccupied portion of the Hill belongs to the Hindus…”
The Hon’ble Bench also observed that the Deepathoon can be defined as a pillar in circular oil lamp made in stone held by stem standing on a circular base which is very much different then the flag staff. It has also been mentioned that the very purpose of the Deepathoon is to light lamp and therefore it is an instrumental value and that is to facilitate lightening lamps on occasion such as Karthigai Deepam.
Para 25: “…..Deepathoon or stone lamp pillar can be defined as a circular oil lamp made in stone held by a stem standing on a circular base…..”
“…..The very purpose of Deepathoon is to light lamp thereon. Res Ipsa Loquitor. The thing speaks for itself. A Deepathoon at this spot would not have been put up for aesthetic value. Obviously, it is not an ornament. It has an instrumental value and that is to facilitate lighting lamps on occasions such as this…..”
Finding that Deepathoon is a Temple Property: Para 26
The Hon’ble Bench has also observed that the Deepathoon where the Petitioners seeking permission to light the Deepam is a temple property. To substantiate the ground the Hon’ble Bench mentioned that when some Hindus in the recent past attempted to light the lamp, then temple management in hurried manner put up a covering. The question which now arise if the Deepathoon and the adjoining area belonged to Dargah then Dargah would not have sat quiet and allowed the temple authorities to put up a covering.
Onus on the Petitioner to proof if any custom has been upheld:
The Court while dealing with the issue of Custom in the present case has held that the question herein is not of one of the custom but one of the right. Lightening lamp at top of the Hill is a tradition from time immemorial. The Hon’ble Bench also quoted a popular saying “Kundrin Mel Itta Vilakkai Pola” (Like a lamp lit atop the hill). It is significant to mention herein that Tamil Hindus have the tradition to lightening lamps at top of the hill in the month of Karthigai.
The Hon’ble Court observed that Thiruvannamalai is a well known pilgrim Centre, alike which the hill of Arunachla itself worshipped as Lord Shiva. In Arunachal Puranam it is believed that Lord appeared in the form of light on the Hill Top and therefore on a particular day during the Tamil month of karthigai, Deepam is being lit and therefore the petitioners are justified in demanding that the temple management resumes or restores the tradition.
Para 30: “…..The question is not one of custom. The question is one of right. Lighting lamp atop the hill is a Tamil tradition. There is a popular saying “Kundrin Mel Itta Vilakkai Pola” (Like a lamp lit atop the hill). Seevaga Chinthamani is one of the five great Tamil epics…”
“…..Thiruvannamalai is a well known pilgrim centre. Just like Thirupparankundram hillock, the hill of Arunachala itself is worshiped as Lord Shiva. In Arunachala Puranam, the mythology behind the appearance of the Lord in the form of light on the hilltop is sung in verse. That is why on a particular day every year during Tamil month of Karthigai, in Thiruvannamalai, at the hill top, Karthigai Deepam is lit…”
Operative Para of the Judgement: (Para 38-4)”
Now the issue to be formulated herein that whether the Devsthanam is obliged to light Karthigai Deepam at deepathoon also apart from the site from the site near Uchi Pilliyar Mandapam and therefore by taking into consideration the law and the evidences the Hon’ble Bench held that the Devsthanam is under a legal duty to do so in order to protect the property as declared in O.S. no. 4 of 1920. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Bench that by doing so Devsthanam would also be honoring the Tamil Tradition of lightning at top of the hill. The Hon’ble Court mentioned in its order that the temple management has to restore the abandoned traditions so long as Constitutional Morality is not breached.
It noted that the lamp pillar is over 50 metres away from the Dargah, located at a safe distance where rituals cannot affect the structure in any way. The judge stated: “By lighting the lamp at Deepathoon which is meant for that purpose, the structure of the Dargah is not in any way affected.” Justice Swaminathan observed that the Dargah management had, in fact, signed a peace committee resolution in 2005 expressing no objection to lighting the lamp at Deepathoon. Speaking to the Places of Worship Act, 1991, it does not apply to this case, because the act of lighting the lamp does not alter, convert, or encroach upon any place of worship.
