The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday delivered a detailed common judgment on a long-running religious dispute linked to Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai district. A Division Bench overturned a single judge’s direction that required lighting a ceremonial lamp at a stone pillar on the hill during the Tamil month of Karthigai, holding that such an order went beyond the limits of writ jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after a group of worshippers sought a court order to revive the practice of lighting a lamp known as Karthigai Deepam at a stone lamp pillar (Deepathoon) located on the Thiruparankundram hill. The single judge of the High Court had accepted the plea and directed the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple to light the lamp on the full moon day of the Karthigai month.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Refuses Bail to Woman Accused of Handling Drug Syndicate Finances Under MCOCA
However, the State government, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, and representatives of the nearby Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah challenged the order. They argued that the directive could disturb communal harmony and introduce a practice not conclusively proved as an established religious custom.
What the Appeals Raised
Multiple writ appeals were filed by the District Collector, police authorities, temple officials, and other stakeholders. The appellants contended that:
- There was no clear historical proof of an uninterrupted custom of lighting the lamp at the disputed spot.
- Questions of title, possession, and religious rights over the hill could not be settled in writ proceedings.
- Any judicial direction affecting a sensitive religious site had the potential to disturb public peace.
The State also expressed concern that enforcing the order could trigger law-and-order issues in the area.
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench, comprising Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, took note of the layered history of Thiruparankundram hill, which hosts Hindu temples, Jain caves, and an Islamic dargah at different levels.
“The writ court cannot decide disputed questions of title or invent a religious practice in the name of restoration,” the Bench observed, adding that courts must exercise restraint in matters involving faith and long-contested historical claims.
The judges pointed out that even if parties believed they had proprietary or customary rights, the appropriate forum would be a civil court, where evidence could be tested through trial. Issuing directions in a writ petition, the Bench said, amounted to telling authorities “what ought to be done,” which is not the purpose of constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Public Order and Judicial Limits
A key factor in the ruling was the apprehension of disturbance to public peace. The court acknowledged the administration’s responsibility to prevent conflict, especially when religious sentiments of different communities intersect at a single location.
Read also:- Tripura High Court Shields Genuine Buyers from GST Double Burden, Reads Down Input Tax Credit Rule
The Bench also referred to earlier historical litigation, including Privy Council decisions, to underline that the hill’s status has been debated for over a century. Against this backdrop, the court stressed that judicial orders should not unintentionally escalate tensions.
Decision
Allowing the batch of writ appeals, the Madras High Court set aside the single judge’s order directing the lighting of the lamp at the stone pillar on Thiruparankundram hill. The court clarified that questions relating to ownership, possession, or customary religious practices must be pursued before the appropriate civil forum, not through writ petitions.
With this, the Division Bench brought the proceedings to a close, emphasizing adherence to constitutional limits and the need to preserve public harmony.
Case Title: The Executive Officer v. Rama Ravikumar and Others
