Thiruparankundram: A Local Dispute, A Court Order, And The Politics Of Faith

The demand to light a deepam near the dargah at Thirupparankundram in Tamil Nadu is snowballing into a major political and social flashpoint. The Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench, by dismissing the Tamil Nadu government’s petition against an earlier single-judge order permitting the lighting of the lamp on the hill, has given the controversy a fresh lease of life. With the DMK government indicating it will appeal the judgment, the issue is poised to become a significant electoral fault line ahead of the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.

Allegations of judicial overreach have been raised in political and legal circles, even as the controversy increasingly straddles sensitive religious sentiments and constitutional questions. What began as a local dispute has now evolved into a larger political confrontation that intersects with faith, law, and electoral strategy.

The BJP has seized upon the Madurai Bench’s observations against the Tamil Nadu government, projecting them as a vindication of its stand. The court took exception to the State’s argument that apprehensions over law and order and public peace justified its challenge to an earlier order of Justice G.R. Swaminathan, which had permitted the lighting of a deepam despite objections from a section of the local population.

Meanwhile, the Madras High Court has stayed the release of a book allegedly targeting Justice G.R. Swaminathan, the single-judge who had earlier permitted the lighting of the lamp at the disputed pillar. Observing that the proposed publication—based on its title and contents as presented in the petition—was “highly derogatory and abusive” and crossed “all limits,” the court initiated contempt proceedings against the publishers.

The controversy—fraught with the potential for communal polarisation—reignited with a petition filed by Rama Ravikumar of the Hindu Munnani, seeking permission to light the Karthigai Deepam at a stone pillar on the higher peak of the Thiruparankundram hill, less than 50 metres from the dargah. Traditionally, the ritual had been performed at the Uchchi Pillaiyar temple located on the hill.

Overruling the State government’s objections, Justice Swaminathan allowed the plea, holding that the lamp could be lit at both locations. However, the DMK government refused to grant permission despite the order, prompting contempt of court proceedings. In his judgment, Justice Swaminathan described the stone pillar near the dargah as a “deepathoon”—a term that, according to local political leaders, had not been used earlier to describe the structure. The judgment has drawn sharp criticism over what many describe as judicial overreach.

The state argued that the pillar was just a survey stone left by the British in the 18^th century.  The government, relied its arguments, on extracts from an 1879 book by Surveyor General JT Walker on the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India. But the High Court observed that there is ample evidence that the pillar was not a survey stone. This observation by the Court also generated huge controversy.

  The government’s refusal to observe the single bench order led to the  contempt proceedings. It further escalated tensions when the judge impleaded the Union Home Secretary, a move that drew sharp criticism from several political parties, including the DMK, the CPM, and the VCK. The escalating controversy prompted the DMK to initiate impeachment proceedings against the judge, underscoring how a local religious dispute has escalated into a high-stakes political and institutional confrontation. On December 9, 107 Members of Parliament signed a petition seeking the impeachment of Justice G.R. Swaminathan – who has impleaded the home secretary in New Delhi. The notice, according to sources, is with the Loksabha speaker.

While the BJP has welcomed the division bench’s judgment, portraying it as a victory for all devotees of Lord Murugan, the DMK and its allies have questioned the judges' reasoning in adjudicating the matter. VCK leader and Member of Parliament Ravikumar was particularly critical of the verdict.

In an interview with Outlook, Ravikumar questioned the very premise of the case. “The petition has been filed by a person who claims that the lamp must be lit only on that particular pillar. The court should have required the petitioner to produce proof to substantiate this claim—that is the legally appropriate procedure. Instead, the judges observed that the temple administration and the Tamil Nadu government failed to prove that the pillar was not meant for lighting the lamp. It isn't easy to understand what kind of justice this is. This, too, is contrary to law,” he said.

According to several observers, the confrontation is being driven less by religious practice and more by electoral calculations. For the BJP, which has been struggling to find an issue that aligns with its ideological agenda and helps expand its footprint in Tamil Nadu, Thiruparankundram appears to have offered a timely political opening.

Civil society voices, however, see a deliberate attempt to manufacture polarisation. Kathir, a Madurai-based activist, argued that the controversy was artificially stoked to serve political ends. “This is an attempt to divide people by raising a non-issue. The entire operation appears to be meticulously planned. Hindutva groups have deliberately triggered communal polarisation to further their political interests,” he said.

Tamil Nadu, while largely resistant to Hindutva politics, is demographically a Hindu-majority state. According to the 2011 Census, over 87 per cent of the population identifies as Hindu, while Christians account for 6.12 per cent and Muslims 5.86 per cent. Yet, despite this ostensibly favourable demographic composition, the BJP and other Hindutva-oriented parties have historically failed to gain significant political traction in the state.

This anomaly is widely attributed to the enduring dominance of Dravidian politics, whose ideological foundations rest on anti-casteism, social justice, and a sustained critique of North Indian Brahminical and Hindutva narratives. These political traditions have, for decades, acted as a bulwark against the consolidation of religious majoritarian politics in Tamil Nadu.

However, the BJP’s rise to dominance at the national level has infused new energy into its Tamil Nadu unit, prompting it to align with the AIADMK in an effort to expand its political footprint in the State. In June last year, the Hindu Munnani—actively backed by the BJP—organised the Murugan Devotees Conference, signalling a calibrated attempt to foreground religious identity in electoral mobilisation.

Lord Murugan occupies a unique place in Tamil society, revered across caste lines and particularly among backward communities. The BJP has increasingly sought to project Murugan as a political and cultural mascot, anchoring its outreach and ideological messaging around the deity. This strategy became explicit when BJP leader H. Raja described Thiruparankundram as the “Ayodhya of the South” in response to allegations that meat was consumed on the hill. The remark underscored the party’s effort to recast the site as a symbol of religious assertion and political mobilisation.

The court order, the State government’s decision to challenge it in the Supreme Court, and its earlier reluctance to comply with the judgment have together further complicated the issue by drawing the judiciary into an already fraught political contest. Allegations of judicial overreach, the overt politicisation of a dispute involving the coexistence of sites of different faiths, and administrative decisions seemingly calibrated to electoral considerations have combined to turn Thiruparankundram into a potential flashpoint—one that could unsettle the social harmony that has long characterised the region.