Courts Enter Sacred Terrain

Courts Enter Sacred Terrain

On 23 January 2026, the Supreme Court of India issued notice on a writ petition filed by the Hindu Dharma Parishad, seeking the takeover of the Thirupparankundram Lord Murugan Subramaniya Swamy Temple by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and permanent lighting of the Deepathoon (stone pillar) atop Thirupparankundram Hill.

The case has attracted national attention because it lies at the intersection of religious freedom, heritage governance, public order, minority rights, and constitutional authority, while also involving overlapping claims over a sacred hill that hosts both a Hindu temple and a Muslim dargah.

Historical and Religious Significance of Thirupparankundram

Thirupparankundram is one of the six sacred abodes (Arupadai Veedu) of Lord Murugan, making it a major pilgrimage centre for Tamil Hindus. The hill has, for centuries, been associated with ritual lighting of lamps (deepam), particularly during Karthigai Deepam, symbolising divine presence and spiritual illumination.

At the same time, the hill also houses a dargah, reflecting a layered religious history where multiple faith traditions have coexisted. Such shared sacred spaces are not uncommon in South India, but they often become sites of contestation when religious practices intersect with state regulation and identity politics.

Legal Background: From the Madras High Court to the Supreme Court

The present controversy began with litigation before the Madras High Court, where a single judge directed the temple authorities to light a lamp at the stone pillar on the hill. The court later reprimanded the Tamil Nadu government for obstructing the implementation of its order.

When the state failed to comply, a contempt petition was filed. In a significant judicial intervention, the High Court:

• Allowed devotees to climb the hill and light the lamp themselves,
• Directed Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) protection,
• Quashed prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which restricts public assembly.

The Tamil Nadu government challenged these directions, but a division bench upheld the single judge’s order on 6 January 2026. Parallel appeals and counter-appeals by the State, police authorities, the Dargah representatives, and the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board further complicated the legal landscape, ultimately bringing the matter before the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised in the Supreme Court Petition

The writ petition before the Supreme Court raises several far-reaching questions:

1. Control and Administration of Religious Sites
   The Hindu Dharma Parishad seeks transfer of control from the state’s Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department to the ASI, arguing that the hill is a heritage and religious site requiring neutral, central oversight.
2. Religious Freedom versus Public Order
   The demand for permanent 24-hour lighting of the Deepathoon and unrestricted worship on Karthigai Deepam raises concerns about crowd management, law and order, and inter-community harmony.
3. Judicial Overreach or Judicial Protection of Rights
   Critics argue that repeated judicial directions on religious practices risk encroaching upon executive functions. Supporters counter that courts are merely enforcing Article 25 (freedom of religion) when the state allegedly acts arbitrarily.

Constitutional and Legal Dimensions

Freedom of Religion

Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution guarantee freedom of conscience and the right to manage religious affairs, subject to public order, morality, and health. Courts have consistently held that essential religious practices deserve protection, but determining what is “essential” often invites controversy.

Role of the State

The state has a constitutional duty to:

• Maintain public order,
• Ensure communal harmony,
• Regulate religious institutions for secular administration.

In Tamil Nadu, this role is historically exercised through the HR&CE Department, whose extensive control over temples has itself been a subject of debate and litigation.

Archaeological Survey of India

The ASI generally manages protected monuments under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act. Handing over an actively worshipped temple hill to the ASI would mark a significant policy and legal shift, blurring the line between heritage conservation and religious administration.

Communal Harmony and Shared Sacred Spaces

One of the most sensitive aspects of the dispute is the coexistence of Hindu and Muslim religious structures on Thirupparankundram Hill. Any judicial or administrative decision is likely to set a precedent for similar sites across India.

The Supreme Court has historically emphasised:

• Status quo maintenance,
• Avoidance of actions that could disturb communal peace,
• The principle that faith-based claims must be balanced against constitutional secularism.

Broader Implications

This case is not merely about a lamp or a hill. It reflects deeper trends in Indian governance:

• Growing judicial involvement in religious disputes,
• Increasing demands for centralisation of religious heritage under national bodies,
• Rising tensions between faith-based assertions and pluralistic traditions.

How the Supreme Court navigates these competing claims will influence future litigation involving temples, mosques, dargahs, and other shared religious spaces.

Conclusion

The Thirupparankundram dispute illustrates the complex balancing act required in a constitutional democracy where faith, history, law, and governance intersect. The Supreme Court’s intervention signals caution rather than finality, acknowledging the sensitivity of the issue and the need to hear all stakeholders.

Ultimately, the resolution must uphold constitutional values of religious freedom, secular governance, and social harmony, without allowing either executive arbitrariness or majoritarian assertion to prevail unchecked. The case will likely serve as a landmark reference for how India manages its sacred spaces in an increasingly plural yet contested public sphere.

UPSC Prelims Question

With reference to the Thirupparankundram Hill dispute, consider the following statements:

1. The Archaeological Survey of India primarily functions under the Ministry of Culture.
2. Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be imposed to restrict public assembly in the interest of public order.
3. Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution guarantee absolute and unrestricted freedom of religious practices.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 1 and 3 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

UPSC Mains Question (GS–II)

Religious freedom in India is subject to constitutional limitations aimed at preserving public order and social harmony.
In the context of the Thirupparankundram Hill dispute, critically examine the role of the judiciary in balancing religious rights, state authority, and communal harmony.