NEW DELHI — The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department has approached the Supreme Court of India (HR & CE v. Rama Ravikumar), challenging a Madras High Court verdict that ordered the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple Devasthanam to light the annual Karthigai Deepam at a stone pillar (Deepa Thoon) atop Thiruparankundram Hill.
In its appeal, the HR&CE Commissioner contended that the High Court’s ruling effectively "invented a new ritual obligation unknown to law," encroaching upon the autonomy of public religious institutions and exceeding the traditional bounds of judicial review.
Background of the Dispute
The legal conflict originated in October 2025 when a devotee, Rama Ravikumar, submitted a representation to the temple management seeking permission to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepa Thoon on top of the hill. The executive officer of the temple turned down the request, stating that long-standing custom required the ceremonial lamp to be lit exclusively at the Deepa Mandapam near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple, located halfway up the hill.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the devotee filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
On December 1, 2025, a Single Bench directed the temple management to light the lamp at the stone pillar alongside traditional venues, observing that the act would honor Tamil heritage and establish the temple’s property rights. A Division Bench substantially affirmed this direction on January 6, 2026, ordering a restricted team—coordinated with police and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)—to light the lamp without public assembly.
Key Legal Issues Raised Before the Apex Court
In its special leave petition, the State HR&CE Department raised several constitutional and statutory challenges against the High Court order:
- Invention of Unestablished Customs: The Department argued that for over 150 years, established practice has restricted the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam to the Deepa Mandapam. It submitted that neither temple inscriptions, Agama texts, archival records, nor prior judicial decrees mandate lighting the lamp at the Deepa Thoon.
- Constitutional Protections under Articles 25 and 26: The petition submitted that while Article 25 guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to practice religion, it does not empower individual worshipers to unilaterally demand alterations to traditional rituals. The Department emphasized that courts must respect the institutional autonomy guaranteed to religious denominations under Article 26.
- Misplacement of the Burden of Proof: The appeal argued that the High Court erred by requiring the temple administration to prove from scriptures that lighting a lamp at the pillar was prohibited. Instead, the burden lay on the petitioner to establish that Agamic principles explicitly required it.
- Bypassing Statutory Remedies: The state highlighted that under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959, disputes concerning temple usages and rituals must be adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner through an evidentiary process, rather than decided directly in writ proceedings.
Broader Policy Implications
The HR&CE Department warned that allowing judicial intervention of this nature sets a concerning precedent. If left unchecked, it could encourage individual litigants to seek court intervention to modify long-standing religious practices and festival protocols across public temples nationwide.
The State has urged the Supreme Court to grant an immediate stay on the High Court’s judgment and permit the temple administration to conduct upcoming rituals in accordance with traditional prevailing practices.
Discription: The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department has appealed to the Supreme Court (HR & CE v. Rama Ravikumar) against a Madras High Court judgment directing the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepa Thoon (a stone pillar atop Thiruparankundram Hill).
The HR&CE Department contends that the High Court created a new ritual unsupported by historical records, scriptures, or the 150-year-old practice of lighting the lamp near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple. Asserting religious autonomy under Articles 25 and 26, the Department argued that courts cannot alter temple customs or bypass statutory dispute procedures. The State seeks a stay to preserve traditional practices.