Deepam row: Temple Devasthanam must light lamp at deepathoon, rules Madras High Court

The case, which has drawn in religious bodies, the Tamil Nadu government and law enforcement authorities, centres on a stone pillar located near the hilltop dargah and whether devotees have the right to light a lamp there as part of Hindu religious practice.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, on Tuesday, held that the Temple Devasthanam must permit and carry out the lighting of the lamp at the Deepathoon, delivering its verdict in the closely -watched writ appeal arising from the Thiruparankundram hilltop dispute.

A Division Bench comprising Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan delivered its verdict on the matter.

In its ruling, the High Court (HC) observed that the practice of lighting a deepam at an elevated location is a long-established Hindu tradition intended to be visible to devotees from afar.

"The practice of lighting deepam at an elevated place is there for all Hindu devotees to see; there is no plausible reason for temple management not to comply with devotees' request to light the lamp," the court noted while delivering its verdict.

The bench held that there was no valid or legally sustainable reason for the temple authorities to deny a devotee’s request and directed that the Devasthanam must comply.

The two-member bench noted that such practices are rooted in faith and visibility, enabling devotees to witness the ritual, and found that the temple management had failed to offer any plausible justification for refusing permission.

Further, coming down sharply on the arguments put ahead by the authorities, the bench termed it “ridiculous” and “difficult to believe” that a powerful state could claim that the simple act of lighting a lamp on temple land would threaten public peace.

Rejecting the law-and-order justification, the bench remarked that such apprehensions were exaggerated and amounted to an “imaginary fear", also adding that unfounded claims cannot be used to suppress lawful religious practices.

"Apprehensions of public peace disturbance is nothing but an imaginary ghost created conveniently, which creates mistrust between communities," it noted.

The court also strongly criticised what it described as a “mischievous” submission that the pillar belonged to the adjoining dargah, observing that the contention was raised without convincing material and appeared designed to complicate, rather than resolve, the dispute.

The case, which has drawn in religious bodies, the Tamil Nadu government and law enforcement authorities, centres on a stone pillar located near the hilltop dargah and whether devotees have the right to light a lamp there as part of Hindu religious practice.

At the heart of the case were two legal questions:

>> whether the stone structure qualifies as a deepathoon, a traditional Hindu lamp pillar, and

>> whether permitting the lighting of a lamp would infringe upon the rights of the neighbouring Muslim shrine.

A Division Bench had reserved its judgment in December 2025 after hearing extensive arguments from multiple appellants, including the Thiruparankundram temple administration, the Tamil Nadu government, the Wakf Board, dargah representatives, the Madurai city police and district authorities.

In addition to its core findings, the Madras HC, on Wednesday, also issued specific directions to regulate the conduct of the ritual and ensure preservation of the site.

The bench directed that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) would be at liberty to impose appropriate conditions to safeguard the monument while permitting the lighting of the lamp at the Deepathoon. It further ordered that no members of the general public shall accompany the temple Devasthanam during the lighting of the lamp, making it clear that the ritual must be carried out in a controlled manner without public congregation.

It also directed the district collector to personally supervise the event to ensure compliance with the Court’s directions and to maintain order during the conduct of the ritual.

The court has now disposed of the appeals on these terms, closing the decades-long dispute while also ensuring preservation of communal harmony.