Thirupparankundram, a name that is on the lips of any Murugan devotee, is now ringing across the nation. Foremost among the six locations in Tamil Nadu – known as Aaru Padai Veedu – deemed as abodes of Lord Murugan, Thirupparankundram in Madurai city has been known primarily as a temple town, quaint and attracting devotees in droves.
Notably, there is rich religious fusion and syncretism on the Thirupparankundram hill, where – besides the Subramaniya Swamy Temple – the Kasi Viswanathar Temple, the Sikandar Badusha Dargah, and also some ancient Jain beds are located.
In recent months, however, it has found itself in a maelstrom of legal battles and intense ideological sparring. Though Thirupparankundram is no stranger to litigation – the first suit being filed as early as 1920 – this time, a petition to light a lamp on a pillar on the hill during the Karthigai Deepam festival is the source of the conflagration. The crisis, this time, also had links to the history of the litigation, which hinged on the ownership of the Thirupparankundram hill, the contention arising between the temple and the dargah located there. Significantly, a Privy Council in London had ruled that the hill would be vested with the temple, and at the same time, it had protected the dargah and the access steps to it.
In November 2025, petitions were filed in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, seeking a direction to the temple management to light a deepam, on the occasion of the Karthigai Deepam festival, on a pillar on one of the two peaks of the Thirupparankundram hill. The petitioners called the pillar a deepathoon, meaning a pillar on which the lamp would be lit.
The State government had argued against it, citing law-and-order concerns, the presence of a dargah at the hillock, and a lack of evidence that the stone pillar was meant to light the Karthigai Deepam.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan’s order, in December 2025, was in favour of the petitioner’s plea, that the deepam be lit upon the pillar. He said that in the Original Suit of 1920, the trial judge recognised that the deepathoon was not an occupied portion of Muslims, though the dargah is at a higher level and the Lord Subramaniya Swamy temple, at the base of the hillock. The Privy Council had held that the unoccupied portions of the hill belonged to the Hindus.
Justice Swaminathan said: “It is, therefore, necessary that the temple management remains vigilant to foil any attempt to encroach on its property. This can be done only by regular and periodic assertion of title. It is not a matter of religious tradition alone. At least for the sake of protecting its property, the temple management is obliged to light the festival lamp at the deepathoon.” He directed the management of the Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light the Karthigai Deepam at the deepathoon, besides at the usual places on December 3.
However, since no arrangements were made by the authorities to facilitate this, the petitioners filed a contempt petition. The judge took a grim view of the fact that the temple management lit the deepam at the Uchi Pillaiyar temple and not at the deepathoon, as directed by him. The judge then permitted the original petitioner to take 10 others along with him, including the other petitioners, go up the hill, and light the deepam at the deepathoon, with protection provided to them by Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel.
However, high drama followed that evening, as a large posse of police personnel denied them permission to go up the hill, citing the prohibitory orders clamped by the Madurai district administration under Section 163 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Pro-Hindu outfits staged a demonstration, condemning the denial of permission.
Justice Swaminathan once again directed that the order be complied with. However, yet again, the State government continued to deny permission to light the deepam, citing that an appeal had been preferred against the verdict. On December 9, the judge summoned the Chief Secretary and Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) to appear before the court via video conferencing. On December 17, Justice Swaminathan, while hearing the contempt petition, said government officials cannot cite law and order to flout court orders. The judge said that would be inexcusable, amount to breakdown of law and order, and lead to paralysis of the constitutional machinery.
Meanwhile, on December 12, a Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan agreed to hear the appeals preferred against the Single Bench order, including that filed by the State government.
On January 6, 2026, they upheld the Single Bench order that directed the Subramaniya Swamy Temple management to light the Karthigai Deepam at a stone pillar, identified as the deepathoon, atop the Thirupparankundram hill. The court dismissed the government’s fears of public disturbance as an “imaginary ghost” and said it would only happen if sponsored by the State itself. The court criticised the State government for citing its apprehension of law and order issues and public peace as a reason for not complying with the previous order.
The judges said: “It is ridiculous and hard to believe the fear of the mighty State that by allowing representatives of the Devasthanam to light the lamp at the stone pillar near the top of the hill located within its territory of Devasthanam land, on a particular day in a year, will cause disturbance to public peace. Of course, it may happen only if such a disturbance is sponsored by the State itself. We pray no State should stoop to that level to achieve their political agenda.”
Being at a vantage point, the deepathoon, which is on a different rock summit and lies lower than the peak on which the dargah is located, is the ideal place to light the deepam. Religious practices always carry a purpose. The practice of lighting a deepam at an elevated spot during the Karthigai Deepam festival and other festivals is for the devotees at the foothills and the surrounding areas to see it and worship, the judges added.
While disposing of the appeals, the judges said the deepathoon is located on the portion of the hill declared by a competent civil court as the property of the Devasthanam. The Madras High Court, in its order on a petition filed in 1994, had given liberty to the worshippers to seek a change of place for lighting the deepam at any other part of the hill owned by the Devasthanam, with a restriction of 15 metres from the dargah property.
They held that the issue, which has undergone judicial scrutiny in different forms over the past 100 years, needs to be resolved to maintain comity instead of keeping the fire alive even without lighting the lamp. The State government has said it will appeal against the verdict before the Supreme Court.
In another development, there was a litigation pertaining to a ritual of the dargah located atop the hill. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, on January 2, directed the authorities of Hazrat Sultan Sikandar Badusha Dargah to conduct only the Santhanakoodu Urus festival – and not the Kandhoori festival, another Islamic observance – and restrict the total number of participants to 50. The court restrained the dargah authorities from carrying out animal sacrifice, carrying meat and non-vegetarian food, and cooking non-vegetarian food as part of the festival. The State government submitted that permission would be granted only for the Santhanakoodu festival.
The drama surrounding the Thirupparankundram case was not restricted to the courts, or the roads leading up to the hill and the contested stone pillar. Even as the matter was pending, 107 MPs of the INDIA bloc on December 9, submitted a letter to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to move an impeachment motion in Parliament against Justice Swaminathan. However, this move was met with criticism from other groups, including former judges, parliamentarians, and senior advocates, who said it was nothing but a direct attempt to destabilise the judiciary in the country.
Earlier in 2025, a Division Bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy, hearing petitions which sought directions that included prevention of animal sacrifice, provision of civic amenities, and restoration and maintenance of the hill as a site of national importance, took different views on the matter. There was a split verdict.
In the judgment pronounced on June 24, Justice Nisha Banu, referring to the Original Suit of 1920 and the judgment demarcating the portion belonging to the temple and the dargah, affirmed that the whole of the Thirupparankundram hill, except 33 cents, belonged to Lord Murugan. The civil court had not only recognised the rights of both parties with regard to the places of worship on the hill but also had defined the rights of each of them.
Since the matter had attained finality during the earlier years of the past century, the judge held it was not inclined to interfere with the same, so as to preserve interfaith peace and amity, safeguarde secular coexistence, and uphold the spirit of religious tolerance and unity among the people.
On the issue of animal sacrifice, the judge said given that ritualistic animal sacrifices were traditionally performed in several Hindu temples across Madurai region, a blanket prohibition would amount to discriminatory enforcement. The judge said there was no statutory bar against the traditional practice of animal sacrifice at religious places in Tamil Nadu.
However, in her verdict, Justice Srimathy said it was the claim of the dargah that the Kandhoori festival, where a form of animal sacrifice is involved, was being conducted for a long time. However, the temple and the petitioners claimed that no such thing was being practised, and demanded evidence for the same. The judge directed the dargah to approach the Civil Court to establish their practice of animal sacrifice during Kandhoori festival, but allowed the dargah to conduct the Santhanakodu festival, where no animal sacrifice is involved.
Because it was a split verdict, the case was placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Justice R. Vijayakumar was named the tie-breaker judge to decide the issue. On October 10, 2025, he concurred with Justice Srimathy. Further, referring to notifications issued by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) declaring almost the entire hill as a protected monument and as per Rule 8(g) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules 1959, bringing any animal for any purpose other than maintenance of monuments is prohibited and as per Rule 8(c), cooking or consuming of food is also prohibited except where it is permitted specifically, the judge held that there was a statutory bar against the practice of animal sacrifice on the hill.
Curated by Shiv Shakti Mishra
