Not a One-Day Ritual: Plea In SC Says Thiruparankundram Deepam Is a Civilisational Practice

The Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi took up the matter, which arises from an ongoing dispute over the lighting of a lamp near a dargah situated on the hill, adjacent to the Thiruparankundram Murugan (Subramaniya Swamy) Temple, one of the six revered abodes of Lord Murugan. The Court issued notice on a writ petition. 

At the outset, Justice Aravind Kumar noted that the issue was still pending consideration before the Madras High Court.

Counsel appearing for the respondents informed the Bench that the parties were contemplating filing a Special Leave Petition against the High Court’s decision. It was also pointed out that a Division Bench of the High Court had recently upheld a single judge’s order permitting the lighting of the lamp at the stone pillar.

“Notice,” Justice Kumar said briefly, indicating the Court’s decision to examine the plea despite the parallel proceedings.

The petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, through AoR Narendra Kumar Verma invoking the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction. The Hindu Dharma Parishad has sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to take over the management and control of the entire Thiruparankundram Lord Murugan Subramaniya Swamy Temple by the Central Archaeological Department and other authorities.

Crucially, the petition seeks directions for the permanent lighting of a lamp at the Deepathoon, the ancient stone lamp post situated at the hilltop, for 24 hours a day. It also prays for an order directing that every year, on the occasion of Karthigai Deepam in the Tamil month of Karthigai, the entire Thiruparankundram Hill be illuminated with lamps, and that Murugan devotees be allowed unrestricted worship.

The plea asserts that Thiruparankundram Hill is of immense religious, cultural and historical significance to Hindus and that the Deepathoon is an integral part of the temple’s traditions. According to the petitioner, denial or restriction on lighting the Deepam violates the devotees’ fundamental rights, including the right to freely practise and propagate religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.

While the Madras High Court has allowed the lighting of the lamp, the broader questions surrounding permanent arrangements, administrative control of the site, and annual large-scale illumination of the hill remain unresolved.

Notably on January 6, a division bench of the Madras High Court upheld a single judge’s order directing that the Karthigai Deepam ceremonial lamp be lit at the stone pillar known as Deepathoon atop the Thiruparankundram hills in Madurai, rejecting appeals by the State of Tamil Nadu and other parties challenging that direction. The bench, comprising Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan, while pronouncing its judgment, held that the December 1 single judge order was neither barred by res judicata nor unsustainable in law, and dismissed the batch of appeals arising from it.

The issue arose from a writ petition filed by Rama Ravikumar and others seeking enforcement of lighting the sacred Deepam at the ancient stone pillar on Thiruparankundram hill during the annual Karthigai Deepam festival. On December 1, a single judge of the high court directed the management of the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light the Deepam at the Deepathoon in addition to the traditional site near the Uchi Pillaiyar Mandapam. The judge observed that the temple authority could not deny devotees’ plea without reasonable basis, and that facilitating the ritual did not infringe the rights of any other community.

The State, joined by the temple management and the Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah at Thiruparankundram, filed appeals contending that there was no material on record to establish that the pillar was ever used as a Deepathoon or that there existed a customary right to light the Deepam there. The Advocate General argued before the division bench that neither historical evidence nor temple records supported the assertion of the pillar’s ritual use, and that the single judge had exceeded judicial bounds by effectively creating a new practice without proper foundation.

Case Title: Hindu Dharma Parishad v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul Pancholi

Hearing Date: January 23, 2026