A lamp lit at Thiruparankundram temple as part of ‘Karthigai Deepam’ festival celebrations, in Madurai district, Tamil Nadu. (Left/ PTI photo)
NEW DELHI: In a long-running dispute over religious practices on the Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with a Madras high court judgment that permitted lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at a hilltop stone pillar and restricted Muslim prayers at a nearby site except during Ramzan and Bakri-Id.The high court had held that Muslims have no right to conduct any prayers at the Nellithoppu site except during Ramzan and Bakri-Id. The 33 cents of land is owned by the Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah. The high court had also ruled that animal sacrifice cannot be permitted in the area.Challenging the verdict, M. Imam Hussain, a worshipper at the Dargah, approached the apex court. A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale declined to interfere, describing the high court order as balanced. Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that there has never been a law and order problem in the area.Justice Kumar responded that had there been no law and order issue, there would not have been a meeting of the Peace Committee. “It seems to be a very very balanced order,” Justice Kumar said and Justice Varale agreed with it, according to the Live Law.”We do not propose to interfere with the order. Without expressing any opinion on rights of the parties, the impugned order stands upheld,” the bench observed. The ruling stems from proceedings before the Madurai Bench of the Madras high court, which had upheld a single judge’s order permitting the Thiruparankundram Murugan Temple management to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon, a stone pillar located on one of the peaks of the Thiruparankundram hill.
‘Hard To Believe Mighty State’s Fear Of Disturbance In Peace’
A division bench confirmed the earlier ruling of Justice GR Swaminathan, directing that the ceremonial lamp be lit at the Deepathoon in addition to the other customary locations during the festival.The high court observed that the district administration ought to have treated the issue as an opportunity to bridge the gap between the communities through mediation. It further held that since the hill is a protected site, any activity carried out there must strictly comply with the provisions of the relevant law.The court clarified that the lamp may be lit and the number of persons permitted can be fixed, subject to consultation with the Archaeological Survey of India. With this, the court cleared the way for continuation of the practice, dismissing objections raised against lighting the lamp at the hilltop stone pillar.What’s the deepam row?Thiruparankundram hill, rising at the edge of Madurai, carries a layered religious history spanning more than two millennia. Revered as one of the six abodes of Lord Murugan, it houses the ancient Subramaniya Swamy Temple and has references in Sangam-era literature. Archaeological traces reveal Jain presence dating back over 2,300 years. By the 14th century, the hill also became associated with Sikandar Shah, whose memorial evolved into the Sikkandar Badusha Dargah. For generations, temple festivals and dargah observances unfolded in proximity, with local residents describing shared rituals and overlapping traditions rather than rigid divisions.The current dispute centres on where the Karthigai Deepam should be lit during the annual festival. Historically, the lamp was lit at the Uchipillaiyar mandapam. Petitions beginning in the 1990s sought to shift the lighting to the hilltop Deepathoon pillar. Courts had earlier declined to alter established practice. However, a fresh petition in 2024 argued that the 1920s Privy Council decree recognising temple ownership of the hill permitted lighting at the pillar. Justice G R Swaminathan allowed the hilltop lighting, triggering administrative resistance on law and order grounds and eventually escalating into a political flashpoint between the ruling DMK and the BJP, before reaching the Supreme Court. Go to Source
