**Controversy Surrounds Karthigai Deepam Lamp at Thiruparankundram Hill**
Amid escalating tensions regarding the Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai, the Tamil Nadu government’s refusal to comply with a single-judge ruling allowing the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp near a local dargah has sparked significant debate. Former Madras High Court judge Justice SS Sundar has voiced strong criticism of the ruling, questioning the Madras bench’s decision to permit a new religious practice despite clear law-and-order concerns raised by the State and its enforcement agencies.
Justice Sundar, who previously served on the Madras High Court, expressed fundamental objections to the order issued by Justice GR Swaminathan. He argued that a writ petition was not an appropriate means to determine whether an individual had the right to light the Karthigai Deepam at a specific location. While acknowledging that Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom to practice religion, he emphasized that this right is subject to limitations.
In his remarks, Justice Sundar highlighted that there was no established custom or practice of lighting the Karthigai Deepam at the hilltop that could be recognized by any court. He pointed out that constitutional courts, while exercising judicial review under Article 226, must be mindful of their institutional limitations, particularly in cases involving disputed factual questions.
Further criticizing the ruling, Justice Sundar questioned how a court could endorse the establishment of a new religious practice when the Devasthanam had opposed lighting the lamp outside its traditional location. He noted that law-and-order issues had already been flagged by the State, with concerns documented in official records.
Justice Sundar referenced previous judgments from constitutional courts that aligned with established principles regarding what constitutes an essential religious practice deserving protection under Article 25. He contended that the judge had overstepped this framework by suggesting that even if lighting the Deepam was not a customary practice, it was crucial to assert the temple’s claim over the lower peak by lighting the lamp at the Deepathoon.
He further criticized the rationale that lighting the Deepam was not a religious tradition but rather a necessary act to safeguard the temple’s property, arguing that such conclusions exceeded the permissible bounds of judicial intervention. Justice Sundar pointed out that similar requests had been denied by the High Court on three prior occasions, and given the ongoing law-and-order concerns, the matter should have been addressed under Section 63(e) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.
He cautioned that a hasty judicial order in such a sensitive issue could lead to communal discord and a breach of peace throughout the State. Justice Sundar’s comments underscore the complexities surrounding religious practices and the need for careful judicial consideration in matters of public interest.
**FAQ**
**What is the controversy surrounding the Karthigai Deepam lamp at Thiruparankundram?**
The controversy involves the Tamil Nadu government’s refusal to implement a court order allowing the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp near a dargah, raising concerns about law and order and the establishment of new religious practices.
