https://x.com/i/status/2008472145408692505 [06/01, 15:04] Sekarreporter: *Tiruparankundram Deepathoon Case* By Order dated 06.01.2026, made in a batch of Writ Appeals with the lead case being Rama Ravikumar versus the Executive Officer, Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple, Thiruparankundram, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) decisively reaffirmed that Thiruparankundram Hill vests in the Temple
[06/01, 15:04] Sekarreporter: https://x.com/i/status/2008472145408692505
[06/01, 15:04] Sekarreporter: *Tiruparankundram Deepathoon Case*
By Order dated 06.01.2026, made in a batch of Writ Appeals with the lead case being Rama Ravikumar versus the Executive Officer, Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple, Thiruparankundram, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) decisively reaffirmed that Thiruparankundram Hill vests in the Temple Devasthanam, subject only to narrowly defined and long-settled exceptions such as the Sikkandar Dargah and Nellithope area, as conclusively determined by binding precedent including the 1931 Privy Council decision. The Court held that neither the State nor any religious group can reopen issues of title, ownership or customary rights through writ jurisdiction.
On the lighting of Karthigai Deepam, the Court ruled that it is not a novel practice and that past administrative restrictions imposed on law-and-order grounds cannot extinguish established religious or proprietary rights. It also held that pathways and steps belonging to the Temple may be used merely for access and not for independent religious activity by others.
The judgment further held that public order concerns cannot operate as a permanent veto over settled legal rights, and directed authorities to act firmly against attempts to foment unrest.
Ultimately, the Division Bench concluded that the present writ petitions were not barred by res judicata and that a petition under Section 63(e) of the HR&CE Act is neither an alternate nor an efficacious remedy. The Court also held that it was not established that there is any Agamic or customary prohibition against lighting a lamp at the Deepathoon and the Court accepted that lighting Deepam is a long-standing practice on Thiruparankundram Hill.
It was further held that the stone pillar (Deepathoon) is situate on Devasthanam land as declared by a competent civil court and the Waqf Board has no locus; its belated claim over the pillar was rejected. The Court found the State’s apprehension of disturbance to public peace to be imaginary and unjustified, holding that administrative law-and-order concerns cannot defeat settled religious rights.
Clarifying earlier orders, the Court held that safety of the Dargah property, not any rigid distance requirement, is the governing criterion for fixing the place of lighting Deepam. The Deepathoon, being at a vantage point below the Dargah summit, was held to be the most appropriate location consistent with the religious purpose of the festival.
Reiterating that the hill is a protected monument under the AMASR Act, the Court directed strict compliance with statutory restrictions and prior judicial directions. The writ appeals were accordingly disposed of with a mandate that the Devasthanam shall light the lamp at the Deepathoon during Karthigai Deepam through a limited authorised team, under the supervision of the District Collector, and subject to conditions imposed by the ASI to preserve the monuments.
