Thirupparankundram row: No evidence to establish stone pillar is a deepathoon, says T.N. govt.

Besides, it submitted there was no evidence to prove that the stone pillar — where a single judge directed the lamp to be lit this year — is called a deepathoon and thedeepam was [ever] lit on it as a customary practice.

A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramachandran commenced hearing appeals preferred against the order of Justice G.R. Swaminathan who had directed the Subramaniya Swamy temple management to light Karthigai Deepam at the deepathoon (pillar) besides the usual places and also other connected appeals.

The State submitted that for more than 150 years, the Mahadeepam had been lit only at the Uchipillaiyar temple mandapam and never at the ‘deepathoon’. No temple record, register, inscription, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department file, or Agama reference supports the petitioners claim of a traditional deepathoon site.

Advocate General P.S. Raman, representing the State, referred to the previous judgments in connection to the issue. He pointed out there was no mention of the deepathoon in the orders on the suit filed in 1920 demarcating the portions belonging to the temple and the dargah. In 1994, a petition was filed regarding lighting of the deepam. In its judgment in 1996, the Madras High Court refused to permit the lighting of the deepam in any other place other than the traditional place the Uchipillaiyar temple mandapam, he said.

After peace prevailed for 18 years, another petition was filed in 2014 to change the location of lighting the deepam. The petition was dismissed. A Division Bench of the court had upheld the order in 2017 and refused the shifting of the place as it would affect peace.

The AG submitted that the right to worship should yield to public order. Pointing to the present case and Justice Swaminathan’s December 1 order, the AG submitted no evidence was placed before the Single Bench to conclude that the stone pillar was a deepathoon. The Single Bench should have leaned in favour of the status quo to maintain peace and tranquility. In the absence of any evidence to show that the stone pillar is a deepathoon the petitioner does not have legal right seeking to lit at the structure.

The temple priests had also said the deepam should be lit at the Uchipillayar temple mandapam. It was the only expert opinion available. If aggrieved it was for the petitioner to file a civil suit, he said. There was no proof to show that traditions were abandoned. Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used to change a customary practice.

Senior counsel G. Masilamani representing the Executive Officer of the Subramaniya Swamy temple also submitted there was no evidence to show that deepathoon was where Kathigai Deepam was lit [in ancient times] and there was no evidence to show the stone pillar is a deepathoon. The Single Bench ought to have referred the matter to a larger bench as a Division Bench had decided the matter, he said.

Representing the HR and CE Commissioner, senior counsel R. Shunmugasundaram submitted that [on the other hand] there were records to show that for 150 years, the Mahadeepam had been lit only at the Uchipillaiyar temple mandapam. The court posted the matter for hearing to December 15, 2025.