TN Temple vs Dargah: Madras HC Upholds Lamp-Lighting at Thiruparakundram Temple Near Mosque, Dismisses Appeal

The Madras High Court has reaffirmed the right of devotees to light the Karthigai Deepam atop the Thiruparakundram hills, dismissing a letter patent appeal filed by district authorities and temple officials. The case, which has drawn attention for its intersection of faith, tradition, and communal sensitivities, revolved around whether the annual ritual could be performed at the Deepathoon - a stone pillar located near a dargah.

Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan ruled that the single judge's earlier direction was valid, noting that the temple administration had failed to comply with the initial order. The bench clarified that the contempt ruling did not alter the substance of the original order but merely shifted responsibility.

The court observed as per Live Law: "When the court found its earlier order was not complied with, the court directed the devotees to light the lamp... the order only changed the person who was to perform the function as per its order. The appeal, filed with an ulterior motive, is dismissed."

How the dispute unfolded

On December 1, the single judge instructed the temple management to light the lamp at 6 p.m. during the festival. When this was not carried out, devotees approached the court with a contempt petition on December 3. By evening, the judge permitted the petitioners themselves to perform the ritual, with CISF protection.

This decision triggered objections from the District Collector, Police Commissioner, and the HR&CE Department, who argued that the judge had exceeded the scope of the contempt petition and encroached upon administrative powers, the report noted.

Arguments and counterarguments

Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran accused the single judge of "judicial overreach," questioning both the timing of the order and the deployment of CISF personnel. He argued that the lamp had not been lit for more than a century, making the urgency questionable, and alleged that devotees disrupted order by breaking barricades and clashing with police.
Justice Jayachandran, however, countered that the administration had not indicated refusal to comply, only calling the petition "premature." He asked pointedly why the authorities failed to act when the order was clear.

Senior Advocate T. Mohan, representing the dargah, added that the structure was not a religious pillar but a survey stone, and that the dargah had been unfairly sidelined in the proceedings. On the other hand, counsel for the devotees argued that the Deepathoon was part of ancient Tamil practice and should not be judged by colonial-era records.

Court's broader message

Beyond the technicalities, the bench stressed the importance of coexistence. Justice Jayachandran remarked: "Communal harmony cannot be achieved by preventing one party from doing their religious function. It can be achieved only by co-existence. Once in a year, if they are lighting without affecting anyone, is there any difficulty in allowing them?"
The ruling closes this round of litigation but leaves open larger questions about how courts balance tradition, administrative authority, and communal sensitivities in shared spaces of worship.