A group of Hindu devotees approached the Madras High Court on Wednesday, 17th December, raising strong objections against the conduct of the Tamil Nadu government and its Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. They told the court that the Commissioner of the HR&CE Department has shown “undisguised scorn and contempt” towards the Hindu faith, which, according to them, reflects a deeper disregard for their religious beliefs and practices.

These submissions were made during the hearing of an appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu government and the Madurai district authorities. The appeal challenges a single judge’s order that permitted the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam atop Thiruparankundram Hill. This hill is home to both the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple and the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah, making the issue sensitive and closely watched.

The appeal contests an earlier order passed by Justice GR Swaminathan on 4th December in a contempt petition. In that order, the judge had quashed prohibitory directions issued by the Madurai district administration, which had sought to stop Hindu devotees from lighting the Karthigai lamp on the hill. Justice Swaminathan held that the restrictions were unjustified and interfered with established religious practices.

The matter was placed before a Division Bench consisting of Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan. Alongside this, another set of appeals was also brought before the court. These appeals questioned Justice Swaminathan’s December 9 order in a related contempt plea, where he directed the appearance of senior officials, including the Chief Secretary, the Additional Director General of Police, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police. He had also ordered the Union Home Secretary to be impleaded in the case.

Justice GR Swaminathan, while allowing the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam atop the Deepathoon, had clearly observed that the Deepathoon was not situated in an area belonging to the Muslim community. He noted that lighting the lamp at that location would not infringe upon or affect the rights of any other community, thereby upholding the religious rights of Hindu devotees.

State has no authority to oppose a second lamp atop the hill: Hindu devotees

Appearing on behalf of a Hindu devotee, Senior Advocate S Sriram strongly criticised the remarks previously made by the HR&CE Commissioner. He informed the High Court that the Commissioner had remarked that even if Lord Murugan has two wives, two lamps cannot be lit at Thiruparankundram. Reacting to this, Sriram told the court, “My trust in my Gods, my faith, is a subject matter of scorn by the Commissioner! It is sheer contempt for my faith. Please don’t send me to a Commissioner who has undisguised scorn and contempt for my faith!”

Another Senior Advocate, KPS Palanival, representing a different Hindu devotee, also made detailed submissions. He asserted that the authorities have no legal or moral right to object to the lighting of a second lamp on the hill. Emphasising the religious importance of the ritual, he stated, “Lighting of the lamp is an essential religious practice, which has to be lit on top of the hill. We can’t say, you are already lighting one, why a second? Deepam has its own relevance to religion,” making it clear that such practices cannot be reduced to administrative convenience.

Palanival further explained the deeper meaning of the Karthigai Deepam and why its location matters. “It’s lit for very many reasons. It’s a manifestation of God. Secondly, everyone in the village can see. Third, at that time, there was no electricity, so lighting had its own significance. A mountain can have multiple peaks. There are mountains with dual peaks. In this case, there are 2 peaks, even as per the photographs. An appropriate place for lighting would have been the peak that’s occupied by the dargah. For some reason, the temple lost its highest peak. Therefore, the next lower peak is selected,” he said, underlining both historical and religious reasoning.

Government demands coexistence by forcing Hindus to give up rights: devotees

Senior Advocate Sriram also urged the court to reject the State’s argument that the dispute should be resolved by approaching HR&CE authorities instead of pursuing legal remedies. Expressing his lack of confidence in the authorities, he said, “I do not think my rights are safe in the rights of the authorities … What further scorn and contempt I will have to face there?”

He firmly ruled out mediation as a solution, stating that past peace meetings had only resulted in Hindu institutions losing ground. Drawing a sharp analogy, Sriram argued, “It is like saying ‘we will wound, let you in pain (and then offer mediation)’ – it is a case of toxic mental cruelty, as is referred to in the matrimonial scene. Every other resolution meeting ended with Hindus retreating, giving up little more of their rights,” highlighting a pattern he said could no longer be ignored.

Accusing the State of bias, Sriram claimed that the government’s idea of coexistence comes at the cost of Hindu religious rights. He told the court, “The submission of the State is ‘keep retreating, don’t assert your right, live for another day.’ This is the stand of the State, which is the guardian, who needs to be secular and fiercely neutral to protect my rights under Article 25 … The State wants us to coexist, but I can coexist only if I surrender,” stressing that such an approach violates constitutional guarantees.

Sriram further submitted that there have been active attempts to encroach upon temple rights. “It’s not mere apprehensions of encroachment; this is the stance of the other side, calling it Sikkandar Hill, asking for animal sacrifice, defacing the walls. Religion should not have colour, but the hills have been painted green during a festival by the other side,” he said, pointing to visible changes and claims made over time.

State attempting to alter the religious character of the hill: Hindu devotees

Defending Justice Swaminathan’s order, Sriram noted that the judge is now facing an impeachment motion initiated by the INDI bloc led by the DMK for upholding what devotees see as legitimate Hindu rights. Rejecting allegations that the judge acted on personal preference, Sriram said, “It is a reasoned order .. If there is whim and fancy, it is at the foot of appellants, actuated by the compulsions of being blinded to one side and being welcoming to the other. That has percolated to the temple and the trust board, who refuse to speak, and the executive officer who toes the line of the State,” arguing that institutional silence has worsened the issue.

Responding to claims that the Places of Worship Act bars Hindus from referring to the stone pillar as a Deepathoon, Sriram countered firmly, “If anyone is changing the religious nature of the hill, it is the State. It was always a deepathoon meant for (Hindu devotees).” He maintained that the tradition predates current objections and cannot be redefined now.

Government failed to prove the pillar is not a Deepathoon: Hindu devotees

Senior Advocate Valliapan, appearing for yet another Hindu devotee, told the High Court that lighting the Karthigai Deepam atop Thiruparankundram Hill is a core Hindu religious practice. Explaining its spiritual meaning, he said, “It is an essential religious practice amongst Hindus to light the deepam on the day of Karthigai on top of the hill for many reasons. We see the manifestation, the jyothi swaroopam of God. Everybody can see …. Lighting agni (fire) atop the hill has got religious significance. We consider it as God itself, that is why it is lit on top of the hill,” reinforcing the belief behind the ritual.

Valliapan also pointed out that the State had failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the pillar in question is not a Deepathoon. Addressing claims from the Muslim side, he stated, “Yesterday, there was an argument (by the Muslim side) that the ‘entire hilltop belongs to us.’ No, the entire hill belongs to the Devasthanam barring some portions,” clearly disputing exclusive ownership claims.

Advocate Krishnavalli questioned the State’s repeated insistence on resolving the issue outside court, especially when the Muslim side did not oppose judicial scrutiny. Raising concerns over unequal treatment, she asked, “Every time a Hindu or member of the public comes to (court) to see worship is done in a manner, it is done at the appropriate stage and place, what is the problem of devasthanam and HRCE to say we should go to HRCE?”, leaving the court to consider the intent behind such resistance.