Introduction
An appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court of India challenging the Madras High Court’s decision to make the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram hill subject to prior consultation and clearance from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the police. The case raises significant questions concerning religious autonomy, denominational rights under Article 26 of the Constitution, and the limits of judicial regulation over religious practices.
The appeal has been moved by Rama Ravikumar, the original petitioner in the Thiruparankundram dispute, against a January 6, 2026 judgment of the Madras High Court. While the High Court recognised the temple’s right to perform the ritual, it imposed regulatory conditions that, according to the petitioner, effectively dilute and subordinate that right to administrative discretion.
Background of the Thiruparankundram Dispute
The controversy centres around the Thiruparankundram hill, located near Madurai, which is home to the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple and the Sikkandar Badusha Dargah. The ritual in question involves lighting the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon, a traditional location on the hilltop.
The dispute over ownership and control of the hill has a long legal history, tracing back more than a century.
Civil Litigation Since 1920
According to the appeal, civil litigation initiated in 1920 culminated in a declaration by the subordinate court at Madurai that the entire Thiruparankundram hill vested in the temple, except for specifically demarcated areas such as:
- The Dargah top, and
- The Nellithope burial ground.
Although the Madras High Court reversed this finding in 1926, the Privy Council in 1931 restored the trial court’s decree, conclusively holding that the hill belonged to the temple. This declaration, the petitioner argues, has attained finality and has been consistently recognised in subsequent judicial decisions.
Recent Proceedings Before the Madras High Court
Single Judge Order (December 1, 2025)
On December 1, 2025, a Single Judge of the Madras High Court ruled in favour of the temple, holding that:
- The Deepathoon lies on temple land, and
- It falls outside the demarcated area of the Sikkandar Badusha Dargah.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the Karthigai Deepam be lit at the Deepathoon, affirming the temple’s right to perform the ritual.
Division Bench Judgment (January 6, 2026)
However, a Division Bench of the High Court, while upholding the ritual in principle, imposed certain regulatory riders, including:
- The temple must consult the ASI and the police before lighting the Deepam;
- The ASI may impose conditions to protect the hill, treated as a protected monument; and
- The number of devotees permitted to participate may be regulated.
It is these conditions—particularly the requirement of prior ASI clearance—that form the core of the challenge before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Raised in the Supreme Court Appeal
The appeal, filed through Advocate G. Balaji, assails the High Court’s directions on multiple constitutional and legal grounds.
1. Dilution of Final Civil Court Decrees
The petitioner contends that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing fresh substantive restrictions despite the existence of binding civil court decrees, affirmed up to the Privy Council, recognising the temple’s proprietary rights over the hill.
According to the plea, once ownership and control have been conclusively determined by civil courts, the High Court could not subject the exercise of those rights to administrative approval without statutory backing.
2. Violation of Article 26 – Religious Autonomy
A central plank of the appeal is that decisions regarding where and by whom the Karthigai Deepam is lit fall within the temple’s internal religious management and denominational autonomy, protected under Article 26 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner argues that:
- Lighting the Deepam is an essential religious practice, and
- Subjecting it to ASI clearance transforms a constitutionally protected right into a permission-based activity.
In the absence of a clear legislative mandate, statutory authorities such as the ASI cannot be vested with veto powers over religious rituals, the appeal asserts.
3. Impermissible Judicial Overreach
The plea further submits that while courts may impose reasonable regulation in the interests of public order, health, or morality, the High Court in the present case conflated regulation with substantive interference.
By empowering the ASI to impose conditions on the ritual itself, the High Court allegedly crossed the line between oversight and control.
Reliance on Past Judicial Precedents
The appeal also places reliance on a 1996 order of the Madras High Court, which directed that:
- The Devasthanam alone was entitled to light the Karthigai Deepam on the hill,
- Subject only to maintaining a minimum distance from the Dargah.
This, the petitioner argues, demonstrates consistent judicial recognition of the temple’s exclusive right to conduct the ritual.
Allegation of Hostile Discrimination
Another significant argument raised is that of hostile discrimination. The petitioner alleges that:
- Devotees of another faith are permitted access and usage rights up to the Nellithope area,
- Whereas Hindu worship at the hilltop has been subjected to layered administrative controls without authority of law.
This selective imposition of regulatory burdens, it is argued, violates principles of equality and non-discrimination under the Constitution.
Wider Implications of the Case
The appeal comes amid parallel proceedings before the Supreme Court concerning the broader regulatory control of the Thiruparankundram hill, including pleas seeking an expanded role for the ASI at the site.
The outcome of the present case could have far-reaching implications for:
- The balance between heritage conservation and religious freedom,
- The scope of Article 26 rights, and
- The extent to which courts can condition religious practices on administrative approvals.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the appeal in Rama Ravikumar v. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple will be closely watched, as it touches upon foundational constitutional questions. At stake is whether long-recognised religious rights, backed by final civil court decrees, can be made contingent upon executive discretion in the name of regulation.
As the Court examines the fine line between regulatory oversight and constitutional intrusion, the judgment is likely to set an important precedent on the limits of state control over religious practices in India.
PAID Internship Opportunity: Square Circle Clinic (NALSAR), Apply Now!
Supreme Court Stays Punjab & Haryana High Court Order on Tuition Fee During Veterinary Internship
