Why Tamil Nadu’s Vijay government is taking Karthigai Deepam row to Supreme Court

The dispute arose from a petition filed by Rama Ravikumar and others seeking permission to light the sacred lamp at the stone pillar situated near the summit of the hill.

Previous govt’s opposition

The previous DMK government had opposed the request, arguing that the site’s proximity to the dargah could trigger communal tensions and disturb public order. The state maintained that allowing the ritual at the hilltop location risked reopening a sensitive dispute in an area where a Hindu temple and a Muslim shrine have coexisted for generations.

Justice Swaminathan rejected those concerns, observing, “It is ridiculous and hard to believe the fear of the mighty state that by allowing representatives of the Devasthanam to light the lamp at the stone pillar near the top of the hill located within its territory of Devasthanam land, on a particular day in a year, will cause disturbance to public peace.”

“Of course, it may happen only if such a disturbance is sponsored by the state itself,” he added, urging the government not to “stoop” to such a level. The judge further held that permitting a limited number of temple representatives to light the lamp and perform worship was not an unmanageable administrative task and dismissed the state’s law-and-order concerns as unfounded.

When the matter reached a Division Bench, it largely endorsed that reasoning. In its January 6 judgment, the Bench held that apprehensions about communal disturbances amounted to an “imaginary ghost” created for administrative convenience. The court observed that the Deepathoon stood on land belonging to the Subramaniya Swamy Temple and stated that the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board had “no locus” in the dispute.

“The Waqf Board, as on date, has no locus in this matter,” the High Court said.

The Bench was also critical of arguments advanced on behalf of the Waqf Board during the appeal proceedings. Referring to claims that the lamp pillar itself belonged to the dargah, the judges described the submission as a “mischievous” plea raised for the first time during the intra-court appeals.

The judgment also faulted the state administration for failing to use the controversy as an opportunity to encourage dialogue between the communities.

“In our considered view, the state, through the district administration, should have taken this as an opportunity to bridge the difference between these two communities,” the Bench observed, adding that authorities could have narrowed the gap through “peaceful and meaningful negotiation.”

Escalating controversy

The High Court’s intervention came after months of escalating litigation and political mobilisation around the hill. Earlier proceedings had seen the state repeatedly argue that any attempt to light the lamp at the Deepathoon could lead to disturbances because of the pillar’s proximity to the dargah. The courts, however, consistently rejected those fears.

The controversy centres on a stone pillar near the summit of the hill and forms part of a larger dispute involving access, ownership and competing interpretations of historical practice. Earlier proceedings before the High Court had examined whether the pillar lay within temple land, whether access to it required passage through dargah property, and whether lighting the lamp there represented a continuation of an older tradition or the creation of a new one.

The Supreme Court challenge now places those issues before the country’s highest court. The petition filed by the Vijay government is expected to test not only the High Court’s conclusions on public order and religious practice, but also its observations on the conduct of the state administration and the standing of the Waqf Board in the dispute.