The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court will deliver its verdict today in the high-profile writ appeal arising out of the Thiruparankundram hilltop dispute, centring on a single judge's order permitting a petitioner to light a lamp on an ancient pillar located near the dargah on the hill.
A Division Bench comprising two judges reserved its orders after concluding detailed arguments in December 2025. The appeal has been filed by multiple parties, including the Thiruparankundram temple administration, the Tamil Nadu government, the Wakf Board, the dargah authorities, the Madurai city police, and others, all challenging the single judge's direction allowing deepam lighting on the hilltop pillar.
The core contention revolves around whether the pillar in question is a "deepathoon"- a traditional lamp pillar - and whether an individual devotee can claim the right to light a lamp at that location.
During the hearings, the Tamil Nadu government argued that there is no historical, archaeological, or documentary evidence to prove that the pillar is a deepathoon or that deepam lighting was ever carried out there.
The state submitted that the single judge relied on insufficient material, exceeded jurisdiction, and altered long-standing temple traditions.
It also maintained that the petitioner's plea was not maintainable under writ jurisdiction and ought to have been adjudicated by a civil court, as it affects temple ownership, trusteeship, and administration.
The temple administration and the Devaswom Board contended that religious practices within temple property cannot be forced through court orders and that deepam lighting has, for over a century, been conducted strictly as per Agama rules at the designated location, near the Uchi Pillayar temple. They warned that the order could unsettle established religious customs.
Tamil Nadu government authorities also claimed the pillar appeared to be used for night lighting by Samanars who lived on the hilltop centuries ago.
The Madurai police and district administration opposed the order on law and order grounds, arguing that enforcement could disturb public peace in a communally sensitive area and that courts should exercise restraint in religious affairs.
The Wakf Board and dargah representatives claimed that the pillar belongs to the dargah and insisted that any dispute over ownership must be resolved only before a civil court.
On the other hand, the petitioner argued that lighting a lamp is a religious practice protected under Article 25 of the Constitution and does not seek to alter core temple rituals. The petitioner accused the authorities of using law and order concerns as a pretext to delay implementation of the single judge's order and asserted that the hill has historically been a shared sacred space.
Meanwhile, the Division Bench declined to entertain a separate plea challenging the single judge's permission relating to mosque rituals at the hilltop dargah as part of the ongoing Santhanakoodu festival that would conclude on the 6th, observing that its verdict on Wednesday would address all related concerns.
The single judge order by Justice G R Swaminathan couldn't be executed, as the district administration had first invoked prohibitory orders not allowing the petitioner to trek to the hilltop and the next day stopped them, citing law and order concerns.
Meanwhile, the INDI Alliance has moved an impeachment motion against Justice Swaminathan. Citing a list of reasons, they deny it has anything to do with his Thiruparankundram order. Justice Swaminathan hasn't responded formally yet.
