Thirupparankundram row: When politics invades a syncretic hill town

Thirupparankundram, a name that is on the lips of any Murugan devotee, is now resonating across the country. The most prominent of the six places in Tamil Nadu is known as – aaru padai vidu – Known as the abode of Lord Murugan, Thirupparankundram in Madurai city is primarily known as a temple town, which is quaint and attracts a large number of devotees.

It is noteworthy that there is rich Religious fusion and syncretism On the Thirupparankundram hill, where – apart from the Subramaniam Swamy temple – the Kasi Vishwanath temple, Sikandar Badusha Dargah, and some ancient Jain beds are also located.

However, in recent months, it has found itself in a whirlpool of legal battles and intense ideological fights. Although Thirupparankundram is no stranger to litigation – The first lawsuit was filed in the early 1920s – This time, prayer to light a lamp A pillar on the hill is the source of fire during the Karthigai Deepam festival. This crisis was also linked to a history of litigation over the ownership of the Thirupparankundram hill and the temple and dargah situated there. It is noteworthy that a Privy Council in London had ruled that the hill would be vested with the temple, and at the same time, it had protected the Dargah and its entrance.

petition on deepthune

In November 2025, petitions were filed in the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court, seeking direction to the temple management to make lighting arrangements. DeepamOn a pillar on one of the two peaks of Thirupparankundram hill, on the occasion of Karthigai Deepam festival. The petitioners described the pillar as a DeepthoonMeaning a pole on which the lamp will be lit.

The state government had argued against it, citing law and order concerns, the presence of a dargah on the hill and lack of evidence that the stone pillar was meant to illuminate the Karthigai Deepam.

Justice GR Swaminathan’s order in December 2025, was in favor of the petitioner’s petitionThat Deepam Highlight the column. He noted that in the original 1920 trial, the trial judge held that Deepthoon This was not the part occupied by Muslims, although the Dargah is at a higher level and the temple of Lord Subramaniam Swamy is at the bottom of the hill. The Privy Council held that the vacant parts of the hill belonged to Hindus.

Justice Swaminathan said: “It is, therefore, necessary that the temple management remains vigilant to thwart any attempt of encroachment on its property. This can be done only by regular and periodic assertion of ownership. This is not merely a matter of religious tradition. At least to protect its property, the temple management is obliged to light the festive lamp in the temple. DeepthoonHe directed the management of Subramaniam Swamy Temple to light the Karthigai Deepam DeepthoonApart from the usual places on 3 December.

However, since no arrangements were made by the authorities to facilitate this, the petitioners filed a contempt petition. The judge took a serious view that the temple management lit the fire Deepam No more in Uchi Pillaiyar Temple DeepthoonAs directed by him. The judge then allowed the original petitioner to take 10 other people, including other petitioners, with him, to go to the hill and light a fire. Deepam But DeepthoonThey were provided security by Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel.

permission denied

However, there was high drama that evening A large number of police personnel refused to allow them to go to the hill, citing prohibitory orders imposed by the Madurai district administration under Section 163 of the Indian Civil Defense Code (BNSS). Pro-Hindu organizations demonstrated condemning the denial of permission.

Justice Swaminathan once again directed to comply with the order. However, once again, the state government continued to deny permission to light DeepamCiting that an appeal had been filed against the decision. On December 9, the judge summoned the Chief Secretary and Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) to appear in the court through video conferencing. On December 17, Justice Swaminathan, while hearing the contempt petition, said Government officials cannot cite law and order Violating court orders. The judge said this would be unpardonable, amount to a breach of law and order and would paralyze the constitutional machinery.

Meanwhile, on December 12, Justice G. The division bench of Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan agreed to hear the appeals filed against the single bench order, including the one filed by the state government.

On 6 January 2026, He upheld the single bench order Who instructed the Subramaniam Swamy temple management to light the Karthigai Deepam on a stone pillar, which has been identified DeepthoonOn top of Thirupparankundram hill. The court dismissed the government’s apprehensions of public disturbance as an “imaginary specter” and said it would only happen if sponsored by the state. The court criticized the state government for not complying with the previous order citing law and order issues and threat to public peace as reasons.

The judges said: “It is ridiculous and difficult to believe the fear of a powerful State that allowing representatives of Devasthanams to light lamps on a particular day in the year, on a stone pillar near the top of a hill situated within its territory of Devasthanam land, would create a disturbance of public peace. Of course, this can happen only when such disturbance is State sponsored. We pray that no State should stoop to that level to achieve its political agenda.”

Being at a convenient point, Deepthoonwhich is on an isolated rock peak and is below the peak on which the Dargah is situated, an ideal location for illumination DeepamReligious practices always have a purpose, The judges said that the practice of lighting lamps at a high place during the Karthigai Deepam festival and other festivals is for the devotees living in the foothills and surrounding areas to be able to see and worship it,

The judges said this while disposing of the appeals Deepthoon Located on part of the hill declared property of the Devasthanam by a competent civil court. The Madras High Court, in its order on a petition filed in 1994, had given freedom to worshipers to demand change of location for the lights. Deepam On any other part of the hill owned by the devasthanam, there is a restriction of 15 meters from the dargah property.

He believed that this issue, which has undergone judicial scrutiny in various forms over the last 100 years, needed to be resolved to maintain harmony rather than keeping the fire alive even without lighting the lamp. The state government has said that this will happen appeal against decision Before the Supreme Court.

Santhanakudu festival

In another development, there was a lawsuit related to a ritual at the dargah located atop the hill. Madurai bench of Madras High Court on January 2 directed the authorities of Hazrat Sultan Sikandar Badusha Dargah To organize Santhanakudu Urus festival only – and not the Kandhoori festival, another Islamic ritual – and limited the total number of participants to 50. The court barred the dargah authorities from performing animal sacrifices, carrying meat and non-vegetarian food and cooking non-vegetarian food as part of the festival. The state government said that permission will be given only for Santhankudu festival.

impeachment motion

The drama surrounding the Thirupparankundram case was not limited to the courts, or the roads leading up the hill and the disputed stone pillar. Despite the case being pending, on 9 December, 107 MPs from India Bloc, Letter handed over to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla To bring an impeachment motion in Parliament against Justice Swaminathan. However, this step Faced criticism from other groupsWhich includes former judges, MPs and senior advocates, who said that this is nothing but a direct attempt to destabilize the judiciary in the country.

past and recent history

Earlier in 2025, Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice S. Srimathi’s division bench, which had heard petitions seeking directions including prevention of animal sacrifice, provision of civic amenities and restoration and maintenance of the hill as a site of national importance, had taken differing views on the matter. there was a divided verdict,

In the judgment delivered on June 24, Justice Nisha Banu, referring to the original 1920 suit and judgment demarcating the portion belonging to the temple and dargah, confirmed that the entire Thirupparankundram hill, except 33 cents, belonged to Lord Murugan. The Civil Court not only recognized the rights of both the parties in respect of places of worship on the hill, but also defined the rights of each of them.

Since the matter had reached finality during the early years of the last century, the judge said he was not inclined to interfere in it so as to maintain interreligious peace and harmony, protect secular co-existence and maintain the spirit of religious tolerance and unity among the people.

On the issue of animal sacrifice, the judge said that given that animal sacrifices are traditionally performed in many Hindu temples in the Madurai region, a complete ban would be discriminatory enforcement. The judge said there is no statutory bar against the traditional practice of animal sacrifice at religious places in Tamil Nadu.

However, in her judgment, Justice Srimathi said it was the dargah’s claim that the Kandhuri festival, which involves a type of animal sacrifice, was being held for a long time. However, the temple and the petitioners claimed that no such thing was going on, and demanded proof for the same. The judge directed the dargah to approach the civil court to institute the practice of animal sacrifice during the Kandhuri festival, but allowed the dargah to conduct the Santhanakodu festival, which does not involve any animal sacrifice.

Since it was a split verdict, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. To decide this issue, Justice R. Vijayakumar was named the tie-breaker judge. On 10th October 2025, He agreed with Justice ShrimathiFurther, citing notifications issued by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) declaring almost the entire hill a protected monument and as per Rule 8(g) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules 1959, bringing in any animal for any purpose other than the maintenance of monuments is prohibited and as per Rule 8(c), cooking or consuming food is also prohibited except where it is specifically permitted, the judge said animal sacrifice, There is a statutory prohibition against the practice, Hill,