Rama Ravikumar, the original petitioner in the Thiruparankundram Deepam row, moved the Supreme Court, challenging the Madras High Court’s direction that vested discretion with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) over the lighting of the lamp.
A division bench of Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan, on January 6, allowed the lighting of the Deepam on a stone pillar atop Thiruparankundram hill, affirming an earlier single-bench order of Justice GR Swaminathan. However, the bench also held that the hill is a protected archaeological site under the ASI Act and ruled that the ritual must be carried out in a regulated manner, in consultation with the ASI and the state police.
Ravikumar has argued that these directions unlawfully dilute an earlier civil court judgement recognising the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple’s ownership and control of the hill and amount to interference in an essential religious practice, Bar and Bench reported.
The petitioner also relied on a Privy Council judgement from the British era, which held that only specific portions of the hill—including the Dargah, the steps leading to it, and the gooseberry grove (Nellithope)—belonged to the Dargah, while the remaining parts of the hill were under the temple’s administration.
The hill hosts sites and artefacts associated with multiple faiths, including the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Uchippillaiyar Koil, and Kasi Vishwanathar Koil; the Sufi shrine Sultan Sikandar Badushah Auliya Dargah at the summit; and Jain caves and inscriptions, along with other local deities.
The presence of Jain caves, rock beds, and inscriptions led to the hill being declared an archaeological site.
Citing this status, the division bench imposed conditions on the Deepam lighting, including mandatory consultation with the ASI and police authorities and limits on the number of participants.
In his plea, Ravikumar contended that the location of the Deepam and the person authorised to light it fall within the temple’s religious autonomy and are protected under Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to manage religious affairs. He argued that such matters cannot be placed at the discretion of statutory bodies like the ASI unless authorised by legislation.
Notably, Justice GR Swaminathan had earlier, on December 3, held that since the temple administration had declined permission for the lighting citing custom, Ravikumar himself could proceed to light the Deepam.
Separately, the Supreme Court is also hearing another petition seeking an ASI takeover of the hill.