‘They Once Claimed the Hill, Now Preach Peace’: Hindu Devotee Cites Past Animal Sacrifice, Name Change Push in Thiruparankundram Deepam Case

The Madras high court on Wednesday continued hearing appeals against a single judge order permitting the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at a stone pillar, referred to as “Deepathoon”, atop Thiruparankundram hill, with Senior Advocate S Sriram for Hindu devotee Paramasivam forcefully arguing that the hill has historically been recognised as belonging to the temple and accusing the opposite side of shifting positions, from asserting competing claims and practices in the past to now invoking “peace” to oppose the ritual.

The appeals, arising from a December 1 order passed by Justice G.R. Swaminathan, are being heard by a division bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan.

Senior Advocate Sriram framed the dispute as one concerning the right to worship, contending that it could not be confined to Article 25 of the Constitution alone and also fell within the ambit of the right to expression under Article 19. He argued that the State’s reliance on “public order” to deny permission for lighting the Deepam was unsupported by any material and amounted to a constitutional abdication of its duty to protect fundamental rights.

According to Sriram, the danger to public order cited by the State was speculative and exaggerated. “The State has placed no material and no clear pleading to show any danger of such magnitude that it affects community life,” he submitted, adding that mere apprehension could not be used as a tool to suppress an inalienable right to worship.

Responding to the bench’s observation that both sides appeared to be exaggerating, Sriram said he would establish that lighting the Deepam was an essential religious practice. He began by addressing the State’s contention that there was no longstanding custom of lighting the lamp at the Deepathoon and that such a right could not be claimed through a writ petition.

Sriram pointed out that the petitioner’s representation itself specifically mentioned the Deepathoon and expressly referred to the 15-metre distance restriction imposed by a 1996 judgment while seeking permission. He rejected the argument that the single judge had acted without any prayer from the petitioner, stating that permission was sought from the temple for a specific location permitted by earlier orders. However, he said, the temple remained a “spectator” while the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department denied the right to worship.

He asserted that attempts to light the lamp at the hilltop Deepathoon predated even the 1862 litigation and that the practice was not absent but curtailed due to the circumstances of that time, including encroachments and competing claims. The retreat of the temple from the hilltop, he argued, was not voluntary but forced, and similar pressures continued to operate even today.

Sriram accused the State of converting what was essentially a worship rights issue into a property dispute. “One side now says the pillar belongs to Jains, the Waqf Board says it is theirs, and in a writ petition asserting my right to worship, I am expected to answer these shifting property claims,” he said, adding that this approach placed competing claims above his fundamental rights.

Emphasising historical findings, Sriram argued that the entire hill stood declared as belonging to the temple, barring a few limited and well-defined exceptions. He submitted that only the steps above Nellithope had been recognised as falling within dargah rights and that the other side could not redraw or expand those rights by claiming ownership over the entire hilltop.

“They are now claiming the whole hill as theirs,” Sriram said, adding that even if the temple had yielded its rights in the past in the interest of coexistence, Hindu devotees could not be expected to retreat indefinitely.

In a pointed submission, Sriram contrasted present claims of peaceful coexistence with past conduct. He told the court that there had been attempts at animal sacrifice on the hill and defacement of its walls, including efforts to rename it as “Sikkandar Hill”, which were disallowed by the high court earlier. “Today, when we seek permission for just three persons to use a few steps at night for one day, they oppose it. Is this peaceful coexistence?” he asked.

Sriram further alleged that the issue was being deliberately complicated and then presented as suitable for mediation, even as acts altering the character of the hill had occurred, necessitating the involvement of the Archaeological Survey of India. He argued that the State was attempting to change the religious nature of the hill in violation of the Places of Worship Act.

As the hearing progressed, Sriram also referred to recent statutory developments to submit that while the dargah could be heard as a contesting party, the Waqf Board’s role itself was questionable in light of restrictions relating to protected monuments.

Further, on the suggestion of mediation, Sriram was sharply critical, stating that offering mediation at this stage was neither neutral nor fair. He likened it to “wounding someone, letting them bleed, and then saying, ‘Come, let’s talk’,” arguing that mediation in the present context was a trap rather than a genuine attempt at resolution. His sole demand, he said, was the ability to profess his right to worship.

The bench will continued to hear submissions after the lunch break.

Case Title: The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramanian Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, Madurai vs. Rama Ravikumar and Others with connected matters

Hearing Date: December 17, 2025

Bench: Justices G Jayachandran and K K Ramakrishnan