The Tamil Nadu government told the Supreme Court that Karthigai Deepam has been lit only at the Deepa Mandapam for over 150 years. The state said the Hindu Dharma Parishad made unsubstantiated claims about the Thirupparankundram Hill. Officials added that temple rituals follow the 1959 Act and established local customs.
The Tamil Nadu government has made a clear stand in the Supreme Court that there has never existed any established practice, custom, or even a prior claim of lighting the Karthigai Deepam on the summit of the Thirupparankundram Hill or at the stone pillar “now described as the deepathoon”.
It said the Karthigai Deepam had been lit only at the Deepa Mandapam for over 150 years.
The State government, in an affidavit filed by the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, T.G. Vinay, said the unsubstantiated claim made by the Hindu Dharma Parishad was “calculated to occasion a breach of peace upon a sensitive site with a recorded history of communal tension”. A contrary religious right under Articles 25 (right to religious freedom) and 26 (right to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution had been neither pleaded nor proved by the Parishad, it added.
“Attempts to light a lamp near the summit in the years 1862 and in 1912 were resisted precisely because it was not customary to do so and a breach of peace was apprehended,” the State said.
The government’s affidavit was responding to a writ petition filed by the Parishad, through its representative K.K. Ramesh, seeking three sweeping reliefs – that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) take over and control the entire Arulmigu Subramaniyaswamy Temple at Thirupparankundram and the hill itself; that a lamp be lit on the Deepathoon permanently, 24 hours a day; and that the entire hill be lit with lamps on Karthigai Deepam.
The Commissioner said the temple, believed to be the first of the six sacred abodes of Lord Subramaniya and a public religious institution of great antiquity, its administration and control, together with the hill upon which it was situated along with its endowed properties, vested exclusively with the statutory machinery, the Board of Trustees, and the Executive Officer appointed under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
The conduct of daily pujas and festivals, and observance of the customary rituals of the temple, including the manner and the place of lighting the Karthigai Deepam, fell within the exclusive domain of the temple administration in accordance with the Agamas, the opinion of the Sthanikars and the 1959 Act, and not with any private association like the petitioner-Parishad, the Commissioner said.
The ownership of the hill by the temple was decreed and settled by a 1923 court decision, according to which the temple had ownership and possession of the whole hill and the Giri Veedhi (surrounding road). However, the court had excluded certain areas such as the assessed and occupied lands in Nellithope, together with the new mandapam, the steps leading up to the mosque, and the top of the rock on which the mosque and the flag-staff of the Muslims are located.
Though the Madras High Court had reversed the 1923 judgment three years later, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had restored the decree on an appeal filed by the temple.
“The title of the temple has accordingly stood settled for close to a century,” the State underscored.
The State said the ASI cannot take over the administration of a “living temple”. The statutory role of the ASI was confined to preservation of monuments of national importance, and not control of a temple, it argued.
In 1996, the High Court had confirmed the State’s position that the Devasthanam had “always lighted the Karthigai Deepam at the pillar within the Deepa Mandapam near the Uchipillaiyar Mandapam, and not any part of the hill”. It had directed that only the Devasthanam, and not any other entity, should light the lamp at any other place. Any deviation in the future would require the decision of the Devasthanam and the prior permission of the authorities under the 1959 law, the court had held.
Competing and inconsistent demands on the place and manner of lighting the lamp would destroy a settled and immemorial custom, the State said.
