In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has dismissed the Tamil Nadu government's appeal against a contempt order, thereby upholding a directive to light a ceremonial lamp at a disputed site on Thirupparankundram hill in Madurai. The Division Bench found the state's legal challenge to be both procedurally and substantively flawed.
Court Criticizes State's 'Pre-emptive' Legal Move
The Bench, comprising Justices G Jayachandran and K K Ramakrishnan, delivered a sharp rebuke to the state administration. The judges stated that the government had approached the appellate court not to contest legal findings on merit, but "as a pre-emptive step" to avoid the consequences of failing to comply with a previous judicial order. They described the appeal as procedurally unsustainable and substantively misplaced.
The core issue revolves around the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam festival lamp at a stone pillar known as the Deepathoon, located on the lower peak of the historically significant Thirupparankundram hill. The site is near, but not within, the premises of the Sulthan Sikkandar Avulia Dargah.
Timeline of a Deepening Dispute
The legal saga escalated on December 1, when Justice G R Swaminathan ordered temple authorities to light the lamp at the specified location. When the ritual was not performed there by the evening of December 4—despite being observed at another shrine higher up the hill—the court issued a contempt order.
This contempt order allowed the petitioner and ten others to perform the act under the protection of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). In response, the state government issued prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, citing an emergent law and order situation.
The Division Bench, however, noted serious allegations that the prohibitory order was either issued before or was "manipulated after this Court called for the original file." The Bench found the state's explanation unclear and insufficient to override a binding judicial direction.
Legal Arguments and Mobilization
The state had argued in its appeal that the single judge lacked the authority to requisition central paramilitary forces and to replace the Executive Officer with the petitioner for performing a religious act. The Division Bench rejected both arguments categorically.
It clarified that the single judge had merely altered "the person discharging the responsibility" after the designated official defaulted on the court's order. This reasoning, the Bench asserted, remained firmly within the constitutional framework for enforcing orders under Article 226.
The litigation is not occurring in a vacuum. The petitions seeking the revival of rituals at the site were filed by individuals affiliated with the Hindu Munnani, an organization that has held repeated demonstrations in Madurai over the issue. The court's contempt order on December 4 was followed by unrest at the site, where supporters gathered and stone-pelting incidents led to injuries to at least six policemen. This prompted major security reinforcements, with nearly three dozen CISF personnel deployed near the temple precinct by nightfall.
A History of Coexistence and Legal Precedent
The Tamil Nadu government's consistent position has been that the recent litigation and mobilization represent an attempt to manufacture a grievance where centuries of coexistence between the hill's temple and dargah have been largely stable. State Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, P K Sekarbabu, has accused the BJP and allied groups of "attempting to start religious riots" and dividing people.
The hill's status has a long legal history. A dispute from 1915-1916 eventually reached the Privy Council in London, which in 1931 ruled that the hill belonged to the temple, except for the specific site of the dargah, its flagstaff, steps, and the Nellitope area. This colonial-era order remains a key reference in the current litigation.
What Happens Next?
With the appeal dismissed, the matter now returns to the single judge, Justice G R Swaminathan. The next phase will involve determining whether state officials willfully defied the court's original directive—a finding that could invoke contempt sanctions. The Division Bench refrained from commenting on culpability, stating that this determination belongs to the ongoing contempt proceedings.
For the Tamil Nadu government, the court's order leaves a narrowed path: comply with the judicial direction or face potential penalties. The ruling marks the latest chapter in a complex dispute where ritual, law, history, and contemporary politics have powerfully converged on a ancient hill in Madurai.
