'What Is The Problem?': Madras HC Questions Tamil Nadu Govt Over Objection To Lighting Deepam

Last Updated:December 12, 2025, 13:56 IST

The Madras High Court pressed the Tamil Nadu government to clarify why it objected to lighting the Karthigai Deepam at the stone pillar atop Thiruparankundram hill.

Madurai: A lamp lit at Thiruparankundram temple as part of 'Karthigai Deepam' festival celebrations (Photo: PTI)

The Madras High Court on Friday asked the Tamil Nadu government if it had a problem with the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the stone pillar atop the Thiruparankundram hills, as the court heard a batch of petitions linked to the case.

Opening the proceedings with what it described as the central issue, the court asked, “What is the problem in lighting the Deepam on the hill if there can be better visibility?"

The matter came up in the backdrop of a contentious dispute regarding whether the ceremonial Deepam should be lit on the alleged “Deepathoon" structure on the hill, or at the Uchi Pillaiyar temple, where the state contends it has traditionally been lit for decades.

The petitions also coincide with public protests and demands that the lighting custom be restored to what is claimed by petitioners as the historical site.

The court’s observations were anchored in this ongoing dispute, as well as its previously issued directions permitting related events under strict conditions.

During the hearing, the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu, PS Raman, reiterated the government’s position that the Deepam had been lit “atop Uchi Pillaiyar temple in the Tirupparankundram hills this year too, as it was being done for the last 100 years."

He stated that the present litigation had arisen after “one individual filed a writ petition insisting upon lighting the Deepam in a different place identified by him," a place now being termed as the Deepathoon near a dargah.

Raman stressed that this was “not a public interest litigation petition but only a private interest writ petition."

According to the AG, the dispute itself raises the essential threshold question, does a Deepathoon exist at all?

He argued that the petitioner “must first establish the existence of Deepathoon and also the need to light the Deepam on it as a part of customary practice."

He said that there was no material placed before the court “to prove that at least at some point of time, Deepam was used to be lit there."

The AG referred to judicial observations made earlier, noting that a division bench had recorded that when “authorities of temple and dargah were carrying on activities peacefully, there was no reason to disturb the peace," particularly since the petitioner had not made the dargah a party.

He added that Justice GR Swaminathan too “ought to have leaned in favour of status quo in order to maintain peace and tranquillity."

Raman further submitted that under constitutional principles, “if a custom was broken and constitutional right to worship was affected, the court can order under 226.

“But 226 is not intended to change a custom by creating a new custom."

He questioned the factual foundation of the earlier direction on the Deepathoon, asking, “Where is the proof for Justice Swaminathan to say that a tradition has been abandoned?"

He maintained that “there’s no factual basis for any tradition having been abandoned."

The court’s hearing also ran parallel to a connected matter concerning permission for a peaceful hunger strike at Thiruparankundram on December 13, where residents and devotees sought to draw attention to what they describe as the non-implementation of the lighting order.

Justice S Srimathy had earlier permitted the fast with strict conditions, only 50 participants, no slogans, no political colour and the entire event to be videographed.

The petitioner, advocate R Prabhu, had contended that the tradition of lighting the lamp on the Deepathoon continued until 1926 before being discontinued due to civil disputes.

News india 'What Is The Problem?': Madras HC Questions Tamil Nadu Govt Over Objection To Lighting Deepam

Read More