Explained: Why a Madurai temple ritual has triggered a legal and political storm in poll-bound Tamil Nadu

Thiruparankundram temple

A decades-old religious ritual at Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai has snowballed into a major political and legal flashpoint in poll-bound Tamil Nadu, following a court order permitting the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp at a stone pillar located close to a dargah.

The controversy centres on the deepathoon, a stone pillar at the Subramaniya Swamy temple complex, situated near the Sikkander Badusha dargah. What began as a dispute over religious practice has now expanded to include court interventions, executive action, political mobilisation and even an impeachment notice against a sitting High Court judge.

The latest turn came with the Tamil Nadu archaeology department entering the fray. Even as the Madras High Court allowed a tightly regulated hunger strike demanding permission to light the ritual lamp, the department conducted an official survey of the stone pillar. This move immediately drew objections from petitioners, who argued that the state was creating fresh evidence while the matter was still under judicial consideration.

According to a report by The Indian Express, a seven-member team from the Tamil Nadu archaeology department, led by deputy director Yatish Kumar and assistant director Loganathan, carried out a survey of the deepathoon and the surrounding area on December 10. Officials said the exercise was meant to provide a technical assessment of the pillar’s physical characteristics, amid claims by some parties that it is merely a survey stone and not a religious structure.

However, petitioners objected to the timing of the survey, arguing that any material generated could influence ongoing legal proceedings. They contended that executive action of this nature, while appeals were pending, risked altering the scope of the dispute and highlighted tensions between judicial scrutiny and administrative intervention.

Parallel to the archaeology survey, the Madras High Court permitted a peaceful hunger strike by residents demanding the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the deepathoon.

Justice S Srimathy passed the order on a petition filed by advocate R Prabhu, allowing the protest to be held on December 13 at Mayil Mandapam on Sannidhi Street. While acknowledging the state’s argument that the core dispute remained pending, the court held that a hunger strike is a form of constitutionally protected expression and cannot be denied outright.

The permission, however, came with strict conditions. Only 50 participants were allowed between 9 am and 5 pm, the use of a single microphone was permitted, no slogans against individuals or communities were allowed except religious mantras, political symbols were barred, and the entire protest was to be videographed.

The present crisis traces its roots to a series of orders passed by Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court’s Madurai bench.

Historically, the ritual of lighting the Karthigai Deepam at the deepathoon is said to have continued until 1926, after which it was discontinued due to civil disputes. On December 1, Justice Swaminathan ruled that the Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple was duty-bound to light the lamp at the deepathoon, in addition to the customary lighting near the Uchi Pillaiyar Mandapam.

The judge held that performing the ritual would not infringe upon the rights of the adjacent dargah or the Muslim community. The state government, however, viewed the directive as a departure from the long-standing practice of lighting the lamp at the nearby Deepa Mandapam.

When the December 1 order was not implemented, the court issued a follow-up order on December 3, allowing devotees to light the lamp themselves and directing the CISF to provide protection. The situation quickly escalated, leading to clashes between right-wing groups and police, after which the DMK-led state government challenged the order in the Supreme Court.

Compounding the controversy is an impeachment notice against Justice GR Swaminathan. Several opposition MPs, led by the DMK, submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking to move a motion for his removal.

The notice, signed by more than 100 MPs, including those from the Congress and Samajwadi Party, alleged serious concerns over impartiality and secular conduct. It accused the judge of showing undue favour to a particular senior advocate and advocates from a specific community, calling such conduct contrary to the secular principles of the Constitution.

Earlier, the INDIA bloc MPs had also written to the President and the Chief Justice of India, alleging ideological bias and caste-based preference, describing the judge’s conduct as amounting to proven misbehaviour.

In response, 56 former judges, including two former Supreme Court judges, issued a statement condemning the impeachment move as an attempt to pressure the judiciary and undermine judicial independence.

The issue has rapidly assumed political overtones, with elections in Tamil Nadu barely months away. Thiruparankundram, long viewed as a symbol of religious coexistence due to the presence of both a temple and a centuries-old dargah, has now become a major flashpoint.

The BJP and right-wing groups have accused the DMK government of ignoring a High Court directive and indulging in minority appeasement. In Parliament, DMK leader TR Baalu alleged that the BJP was attempting to inflame communal tensions in the state, while Union minister L Murugan accused the state government of denying devotees their right to worship.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah described the impeachment move as unprecedented and accused the opposition of appeasement politics. DMK leader TKS Elangovan, on the other hand, alleged unconstitutional interference by the Centre and claimed the judge was acting at the BJP’s behest.

The current tensions echo earlier disputes over the hill, including opposition to demands by some Muslim groups to rename it Sikkander Hill. With legal proceedings still underway, the outcome of the dispute is likely to have implications well beyond the ritual itself, shaping both political narratives and debates around religious rights and judicial authority in Tamil Nadu.