No Proof of ‘Deepathoon’: Tamil Nadu Tells HC in Thiruparankundram Case
Tamil Nadu challenges court order on Thiruparankundram deepam.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court concluded hearings on December 18, 2025, in a writ appeal concerning the contentious issue of lighting a deepam on an ancient stone pillar near the dargah atop Thiruparankundram hill, one of the six sacred abodes of Lord Murugan, with the Division Bench reserving its judgment without specifying a timeline for pronouncement.
The Tamil Nadu government vigorously opposed a single judge's prior directive allowing the petitioner to light lamps on the pillar, asserting that no historical records, archaeological findings, or documentary evidence support the claim that the structure qualifies as a traditional "deepathoon" designated specifically for ritual lamp lighting, and emphasised the complete absence of proof indicating such practices were historically performed at that precise location.
State counsel highlighted that the single judge's order lacked robust evidentiary foundation and overstepped judicial bounds by interfering with established temple customs, referencing a 1929 administrative order that made no mention of any deepathoon near the dargah, arguing that such a prominent feature would undoubtedly have been documented if it existed during that era.
Also Read: 56 Former Judges Blast DMK’s Impeachment Drive Against Madras HC Judge as “Brazen”
Further contending that the writ petition itself was not maintainable under Article 226 jurisdiction—particularly as it involved complex questions of property ownership, trusteeship, and temple administration—the government warned that upholding the order could fundamentally disrupt longstanding management protocols and raised a broader legal principle regarding whether individuals can assert personal rights to perform rituals on specific spots within temple or public property.
Multiple intervenors aligned with the state's position, including the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and dargah representatives who maintained the pillar's affiliation with the dargah and insisted on civil court adjudication for ownership disputes, while police authorities cautioned against enforcement due to potential breaches of public peace, and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department reinforced that the pillar lacks characteristic Nayak-era markings and adheres to no recognised deepathoon criteria, though acknowledging possible ancient Jain usage of similar structures.
Also Read: Amit Shah Condemns INDIA Bloc’s Impeachment Bid Against Justice Swaminathan
