The Deepathoon Doctrine:
Temple’s Duty to Assert Property Rights through Karthigai Deepam at Thirupparankundram

I. Introduction

This common order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Rama R. Ravikumar v. The District Collector & Ors. (W.P.(MD) Nos. 32317, 33112, 33197, 33724, 34051 of 2025, decided on 01.12.2025 by G.R. Swaminathan, J.) lays down an important and somewhat novel principle at the intersection of:

temple property rights,
devotees’ locus standi,
customs and rituals of Hindu temples under the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959, and
the management of multi-faith religious spaces.

The immediate controversy concerns where the sacred Karthigai Deepam (festival lamp) of Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram must be lit:

at the Deepathoon (an ancient stone lamp pillar) located on the lower peak of Thirupparankundram Hill, or
at the Deepa Mandapam near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple, which has been the practice for over a century.

The case arises against the background of a unique religious landscape: Thirupparankundram Hill houses:

At the foot: the rock-cut Subramania Swamy Temple (Hindu);
At the mid-level: a temple dedicated to Lord Shiva and the Uchi Pillaiyar shrine;
At the upper region:
- Nellithope – a relatively flat area with Muslim tombs and a mandapam;
- a flight of steps leading up; and
- on the highest peak: Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah (Muslim place of worship).

Historically, disputes over ownership and user of various parts of this hill have resulted in complex civil litigation, most notably O.S. No. 4 of 1920 (Sub Court, Madura) and the subsequent Privy Council decision restoring the trial court’s decree. Those decrees demarcate with precision what belongs to the Hindu devasthanam and what belongs to the Muslim dargah.

The present writ petitions sought:

to quash the Executive Officer’s communication denying lighting of Deepam at the Deepathoon, and
to direct that Karthigai Deepam be lit at the Deepathoon (in addition to or instead of the present practice).

A counter-petition (W.P.(MD) No. 34051 of 2025) sought to restrain any deviation from the existing custom of lighting near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple.

Against this backdrop, the Court was called upon to decide one central question:

Whether the temple management (devasthanam) can and must be directed to light the Karthigai Deepam on the Deepathoon on Thirupparankundram Hill, in addition to the existing practice near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple?

In answering this, the Court has articulated what may be termed the “Deepathoon Doctrine”: where civil decrees conclusively establish temple title over a portion of a sacred hill, the temple management has a legal duty to assert and protect that property right inter alia by conducting rituals (like lighting Karthigai Deepam) on that property, so long as this does not infringe constitutional morality or another community’s recognised rights.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

1. The Parties and Petitions

Multiple writ petitions were clubbed and decided together:

WP(MD) No. 32317/2025 – Rama. Ravikumar
- Sought quashing of the Executive Officer’s communication dated 03.11.2025 refusing Deepam at Deepathoon and directing lighting only at Deepa Mandapam near Uchi Pillaiyar.
- Sought direction to the temple to light Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon or permit the petitioner to do so.
WP(MD) Nos. 33112/2025 (M. Arasupandi), 33197/2025 (S. Paramasivam), 33724/2025 (A. Karthikeyan)
- Commonly sought mandamus directing lighting of Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon in accordance with the order dated 21.11.1996 in W.P. No. 18884 of 1994.
WP(MD) No. 34051/2025 – R. Kanagavel Pandian
- Sought a mandamus restraining deviation from the “customary practice” of lighting the Deepam at the “usual and traditional place at the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple”.

Respondents included:

State authorities (District Collector, Commissioner of Police),
HR&CE officers (Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, Executive Officer),
Temple management (Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple),
Dargah entities (Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah, its Managing Trustee, and the Waqf Board),
Archaeological Survey of India, and
Impleaded private parties and activists supporting each side.

2. Historical Civil Litigation Over the Hill

(a) O.S. No. 4 of 1920 – Sub Court, Madura

The foundational litigation is O.S. No. 4 of 1920, a suit by the temple management (devasthanam) against:

the Secretary of State for India (through the Collector, Madura),
local body, and
trustees of the Dargah.

It sought declaration, injunction, and recovery of possession regarding Thirupparankundram Hill and its environs. After extensive oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court’s decree (25.08.1923) held, inter alia:

1. The plaintiff (temple) is owner and in possession of the whole of Tirupparankundram Hill and the Giri Veedhi, excepting:

assessed and occupied lands,

Nellithope (including the new mandapam),

the flight of steps leading from Nellithope up to the mosque, and

the top of the rock on which the mosque and the Muslim flagstaff stand.

2. The Muslim defendants are owners and in possession of:

Nellithope,

the flight of steps,

the new mandapam, and

the whole top of the hillock on which the mosque & flagstaff stand.

…
And the defendants are restrained by injunction from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the properties declared above.

The Trial Court concluded:

The hill has been sacred to the Hindus “from pre-historic times” and is essentially a Hindu place of worship.
The hill is an endowed property of the devasthanam; the temple is carved into the rock itself; the “back” of the image of Lord Subramania is the hill’s rock.
The Muslims have exclusive rights only to:
- Nellithope (burial ground with tombs and a mandapam),
- the flight of steps from Nellithope, and
- the highest summit where the mosque stands.

The Court specifically distinguished between:

the higher peak – mosque site, exclusively Muslim; and
the lower peak – associated with the Hindu shrine of Lord Subramania.

Attempts by Hindus in 1862 and 1912 to light lamps at the summit where the mosque stands had been stopped as they were not customary and risked breach of peace. This context is crucial for understanding the later distinction between hilltop and Deepathoon.

(b) Appeal & Privy Council

On appeal, the Madras High Court (A.S. No. 34 of 1924) reversed the Trial Court and upheld Government ownership of the hill, declining to decide Hindu–Muslim rival claims in detail.

The devasthanam appealed to the Privy Council, which restored the Trial Court’s decree. The Privy Council held that:

Construction of the mosque was an “infliction” that Hindus may have been forced to tolerate, but it did not expropriate the remaining hill.
The unoccupied portion of the hill remained in the temple’s possession from time immemorial.

Thus, as of 1923–1926, the legal position became final:

Muslim rights are confined to:
- Nellithope,
- flight of steps from Nellithope, and
- mosque and its hilltop platform (highest summit).
The rest of the hill, including unoccupied slopes and the lower peak, belongs to the devasthanam.

(c) Subsequent Suits and Demarcation

Later suits were largely about enforcement and demarcation:

O.S. No. 111/1958 (temple v. Dargah trustees):
- Injunction granted restraining stone cutting outside Nellithope and assessed/occupied areas as per O.S. 4/1920.
- On appeal (A.S. 90/1960), it was clarified that demarcation could be done in execution.
- In E.P. No. 163/1962, an Advocate Commissioner demarcated areas; the execution court clarified that the injunction against Dargah would not operate regarding Nellithope and gave rights of way to the pond.
O.S. No. 506/1975 and later A.S. 39/1980:
- Filed when Dargah allegedly disturbed status quo; ultimately withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit.
O.S. No. 39/2000 / A.S. 173/2011:
- Arising from electrification disputes; not heavily relied upon in this judgment.

3. The 1994–1996 Writ and the Earlier Directions

After communal tensions and the assassination of a Hindu Munnani leader in 1994, an effort arose to light the Karthigai Deepam on the hilltop. A rival Hindu forum filed W.P. No. 18884 of 1994 to restrain this.

By order dated 21.11.1996, the High Court (single judge) disposed of that writ, issuing key directions:

1. Parties shall recognise the decree in O.S. No. 4/1920.

2. The devasthanam, owner of the hill, shall alone light the Deepam, and ordinarily at the traditional place (Deepa Mandapam near Uchi Pillaiyar). For 1996, it was mandated only at that place.

3. For future years, it is open to the devasthanam to permit lighting the Deepam “at any place in Thirupparankundram Hill” with prior permission of HR&CE authorities.

4. While permitting lighting at any other place, the devasthanam shall choose a place “at least 15 metres away from the Dargah, the flight of steps and the Nellithope area” and from places declared to belong to the Dargah under O.S. 4/1920.

This order is crucial: it anticipates exactly the sort of request now made – to light the Deepam at another place on the hill, sufficiently distant from the Dargah and steps.

4. The 2014 Litigation and the Res Judicata Objection

In W.P.(MD) No. 19422 of 2014, a petitioner sought a direction to light the Karthigai Deepam at the hilltop, insisting that lighting near a “Moksha Deepam” site was scripturally improper. The single judge:

Rejected this request because title over the hilltop (summit) had already been held to vest in the Muslims under O.S. 4/1920 / Privy Council.
Held that settled issues could not be re-opened.

The Division Bench dismissed W.A.(MD) No. 1524 of 2014, confirming the single judge’s order. In the present case, respondents invoked this to argue res judicata.

5. Present Controversy over Deepathoon

The Deepathoon is a stone lamp pillar on the lower peak of the hill, separate from the highest summit where the Dargah sits. Devotees sought that:

the temple itself light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon, in addition to the existing lamp at the Uchi Pillaiyar site, or
in the alternative, devotees be permitted to light it.

The Executive Officer rejected the request, citing “established custom” of only lighting at Deepa Mandapam near Uchi Pillaiyar and asserting non-use of the Deepathoon for many decades.

The State, the temple management, the Dargah management and the Waqf Board opposed the writs on several grounds:

Maintainability and locus standi – devotees allegedly had no enforceable right.
Res judicata – 2014 writ and appeal allegedly foreclosed the issue.
Custom & Section 63 HR&CE – any claim about changing or restoring rituals had to go to the Joint Commissioner, not to writ court.
Property & title disputes – they argued fresh demarcation suits were required.
Communal harmony & Places of Worship Act, 1991 – lighting at Deepathoon would allegedly violate the status quo.
Allegations of political motivation – particularly against Rama Ravikumar.

III. Summary of the Judgment

After extensive hearing, written submissions, and even a site visit by the Judge (announced in open court), the Court held:

Deepathoon belongs to the temple
Relying on O.S. 4/1920, its decree as restored by the Privy Council, and subsequent demarcation in E.P. 163/1962, the Court held that:
- Only Nellithope, the flight of steps from Nellithope, and the mosque & its hilltop platform belong to the Dargah.
- The Deepathoon lies on the lower peak, in an unoccupied area belonging exclusively to the devasthanam.
- Deepathoon is ~50 metres away from the Dargah and beyond the 15-metre exclusion contemplated in the 1996 writ order.
Devotees have locus standi as “persons having interest”
The petitioners, being Hindu devotees and worshippers entitled to attend services, are “persons having interest” under Section 6(15) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959.
Writ is maintainable; no need to go to civil court or Section 63 HR&CE
The issue is not about fresh determination of title or custom; title was conclusively settled in 1923/Privy Council. Nor is this a “custom” dispute needing a Section 63 enquiry; the core question is:
whether the devasthanam has a legal duty to light the Deepam on its own property (Deepathoon) in order to protect and assert its rights and preserve tradition.
Res judicata does not apply
The 2014 case concerned lighting on the hilltop where the mosque stands, which undeniably belongs to the Muslims and cannot be revisited. The present case instead seeks lighting at Deepathoon on the lower peak, a different site, with different rights. The prayer and factual matrix are distinct; res judicata is inapplicable.
Temple’s duty to protect its property through ritual assertion
Drawing on:
- the civil decrees,
- the 1996 writ directions,
- precedents recognising worshippers’ rights to proper conduct of festivals, and
- the HR&CE mandate to safeguard temple property,
the Court holds that the devasthanam must light Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon “from this year onwards”, in addition to the usual lamp near Uchi Pillaiyar.
Places of Worship Act, 1991, not attracted
Lighting a lamp on an existing stone lamp pillar in temple-owned land, away from the Dargah, does not alter the “religious character” of the Dargah or hill, and hence does not violate the Act.
Executive Officer’s decision quashed for lack of jurisdiction
Since the temple has a Trust Board and the issue is of vital importance, the Executive Officer alone could not decide; his decision was without jurisdiction and quashed. However, as the Board had aligned with the EO and the legal position is clear, the Court did not remand the matter but issued a positive direction.
Direction to light Deepam at Deepathoon and police protection
The Court directed:
- The devasthanam shall light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon also, in addition to existing places.
- This duty is to be performed from the current year onwards.
- The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, shall ensure that no one obstructs the enforcement of this order.
Disposition
- W.P.(MD) Nos. 32317, 33112, 33197, 33724/2025 – Allowed.
- W.P.(MD) No. 34051/2025 – Dismissed (petition opposing Deepathoon lighting).

IV. Analysis

1. Precedents and Prior Decisions Cited

(a) Civil Decrees: O.S. 4/1920 & Privy Council

These are the bedrock of the judgment. The Court painstakingly extracts the Trial Court’s factual findings:

The hill is a Hindu sacred space from ancient times (supported later by literary references to Sangam texts like Agananooru and the Tamil epic Seevaga Chinthamani).
There are two peaks:
- the higher – mosque (Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah),
- the lower – Hindu hill-associated shrine.
The Dargah’s exclusive rights are narrowly circumscribed to Nellithope, the steps, and the actual mosque site.
The remainder of the hill belongs to the devasthanam.

The Privy Council restored this decree, emphasising:

the unoccupied portion of the hill has been in the possession of the temple “from time immemorial” and there is no basis to infer expropriation by the mosque’s construction.

Justice Swaminathan uses this to draw a crucial distinction: between the hilltop (mosque site), where Hindus cannot insist on lighting Deepam (2014 writ), and the lower peak and surroundings, including Deepathoon, which are unambiguously temple property.

(b) HR&CE and Devotees’ Locus Standi: T.K. Saminathan & Section 6(15) HR&CE

The Court relies on:

Section 6(15) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959:
In relation to a temple, a ‘person having interest’ includes any person who is entitled to attend or is in the habit of attending worship or service, or is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the distribution of gifts.
T.K. Saminathan v. The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration, 2011 (4) CTC 48 (Madras HC, DB):
- Held that a devotee is a “person having interest” and has locus standi to move court to protect temple properties (here, to evict encroachers).

This directly answers the respondents’ argument that the petitioners are mere political actors with no “present substantial interest”. The Court explicitly rejects reliance on the pre-HR&CE Full Bench in T.R. Ramachandra Iyer v. Ponniath Akathuthu Parameswaran (1919) 9 L.W. 492, which interpreted Section 92 CPC. Since Sections 92–93 CPC are inapplicable to Hindu religious institutions by virtue of Section 5 HR&CE Act, the HR&CE definition governs.

(c) Devotees Suing on Behalf of the Deity: Bishwanath & Ayodhya

The Court cites Bishwanath v. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 8, where the Supreme Court held:

A worshipper is entitled to take action to safeguard the interest of the idol when the trustee fails to discharge his duty of protecting its interest.

This principle – the right of worshippers to act as sentinels of the deity’s interests – is reaffirmed in the judgment. The Court also refers to the Ayodhya / Ram Janmabhoomi decision (M. Siddiq (D) Thr. LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1), noting that even an idol cannot forever claim the status of “perpetual minor” to avoid limitation, highlighting the importance of vigilant assertion of rights.

This underlines an important theme: temple trustees cannot remain passive; devotees can step in to ensure that:

temple properties are protected, and
ritual practices that safeguard those properties are maintained or restored.

(d) Protection of Temple Properties: Suo Motu W.P. 574/2015

The Court relies on a Division Bench order dated 07.06.2021 in Suo Motu W.P. No. 574 of 2015 & W.P.(MD) No. 24178 of 2018 (R. Mahadevan & P.D. Audikesavalu, JJ.) which stressed:

The HR&CE Department and temple managements have a positive obligation to preserve, maintain and protect temple properties.

Justice Swaminathan uses this to criticise the present temple management, observing that:

Historically, it was the devasthanam that initiated litigation to protect the hill.
Now, the management is aligned with the Dargah on this issue, while devotees and activists alone are in the forefront defending temple rights.

This sets the stage for the key holding: protecting temple property may require active ritual assertion, not just litigation.

(e) Worshippers’ Civil Right to Festivals: AIR 1945 Mad 234

The Madras High Court’s decision in AIR 1945 Madras 234 (cited without full case name, but well-known) held:

It is an elementary right of every worshipper of a public temple to have the usual festivals conducted in the usual manner and to be allowed to take part in them in the usual manner… It is a civil right entitled to protection of the Court.

Justice Swaminathan extends this principle:

This right would include not only “what is” but also “what ought to be”.

In other words, if there is a historically rooted or logically necessary ritual associated with a temple property (like a stone lamp pillar), worshippers can insist that the temple management restore or perform that ritual, to the extent consistent with tradition and law.

(f) Civil Decrees & Police Protection: P.R. Murlidharan

The Supreme Court’s decision in P.R. Murlidharan v. Swamy Dharmanandha Theertha Padar, (2006) 4 SCC 501 is cited for the proposition that:

Police protection can be granted in a writ petition to enforce a civil court decree.

Here, the decree in O.S. 4/1920 gives the devasthanam rights:

to enjoy the hill except Dargah’s limited domains, and
to be protected from interference by the Dargah.

The Court therefore justifies the direction to the Commissioner of Police to ensure that no one obstructs lighting Deepam at Deepathoon.

(g) Places of Worship Act, 1991

Though not elaborately analysed, the Court rejects the respondent’s contention that lighting at Deepathoon violates the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Its reasoning, implicit but clear:

The Act bars conversion of the religious character of a place of worship as existing on 15.08.1947.
Lighting a Hindu festival lamp on a temple-owned stone lamp pillar in temple territory, away from the Dargah, does not:
- alter the religious character of the Dargah, or
- convert any Muslim place of worship into a Hindu one.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

(a) From Custom to Property Right: Reframing the Issue

A pivotal analytical move is the Court’s reframing of the controversy from “custom” to “property right and legal duty”.

Respondents argued:

For over 100 years, Karthigai Deepam has been lit only near Uchi Pillaiyar.
If devotees claim a different custom (Deepathoon lighting), they must prove it before the Joint Commissioner under Section 63 HR&CE.

The Court answers:

The core issue is not whether a customary practice exists of lighting at Deepathoon.
The core issue is that:
Deepathoon is a temple property, its very nature indicates it was meant for lighting lamps, and the devasthanam has a legal duty to assert and protect its rights over it – especially in a context where historically the temple’s rights over the hill have been under challenge.

Thus, the question is not “is there a custom?” but “given clear title, must the temple use this property in a way consistent with its religious character to maintain and protect its rights?”

(b) The Nature and Location of Deepathoon

The Court provides both:

a conceptual definition and
a geographical analysis.

Conceptually:

Deepathoon or stone lamp pillar is a circular oil lamp made in stone held by a stem standing on a circular base. … The structure that is found on the lower of the two peaks perfectly answers this description.

By contrast, a flagstaff (associated with the Dargah), is a vertical post, usually metallic, for hoisting flags, placed within the Dargah campus. The Court notes:

The Dargah has a flagstaff within its compound.
Attempts to treat distant trees as flagstaff-locations are untenable, especially since O.S. 4/1920 held that Muslims have no rights over hill trees.

Geographically and legally:

From Nellithope, a flight of steps goes up.
At a fork, one direction leads to the Dargah, another to the Deepathoon via climbing rocks.
Nellithope’s boundary stops where the steps begin; the Dargah’s domain is:
- Nellithope
- the steps
- the highest summit with the mosque & flagstaff.
Deepathoon is beyond and apart from all three; it is an “unoccupied portion” of the hill under the devasthanam’s title.

Justice Swaminathan does carry out a site visit to clarify the geography but notes that his conclusion is not based solely on personal observation – it is supported by and consistent with the civil decrees.

(c) Asserting Title Through Ritual – The Core Innovation

A doctrinally striking aspect is the Court’s insistence that:

At least, for the sake of protecting its property, the temple management is obliged to light the festival lamp at the Deepathoon.

The Court analogises this to a long-standing practice of the High Court itself: closing all four outer gates for 24 hours once a year to prevent the public from acquiring any easement rights. Just as the Court asserts its proprietary control through periodic closure, the temple must assert its control over the hill by periodic, visible, religious use.

This flows from:

the need to prevent de facto alienation,
the spectre of limitation/adverse possession (even if now mitigated by Section 109 HR&CE), and
the pattern of prior attempts by Dargah managers to expand their footprint beyond Nellithope and the mosque (stone-cutting, animal sacrifice in Nellithope, etc.).

Accordingly, the Court conceives ritual practice not just as religious expression but as legal assertion of property rights.

(d) Tradition, Tamil Sources, and “What Ought to Be”

The Court brings in Tamil literary sources:

Agananooru (Sangam literature – poems 59 & 159), describing Thirupparankundram as Murugan’s hill.
Seevaga Chinthamani, with verses on Karthigai Deepam and the tradition of lighting lamps atop hills.
Practices at Thiruvannamalai (Arunachala Deepam) and Yanai Malai (Narasimha temple), where Karthigai Deepam is lit on hilltops.

From this, the Court deduces that:

Lighting lamps on hilltops in Karthigai is a Tamil religious tradition associated with Hindu worship.
The very structure of a Deepathoon – a stone lamp pillar – indicates that it was erected to facilitate such tradition, not as a mere ornament.

By quoting AIR 1945 Mad 234 and extending it to cover “what ought to be”, the Court formulates:

A worshipper’s civil right includes the right to demand restoration of authentic or logically necessary aspects of a festival – here, lighting at a pre-existing lamp pillar on temple land.

(e) Res Judicata: Distinguishing the 2014 Case

The respondents’ strongest procedural weapon was res judicata, based on the 2014 writ and the Division Bench’s dismissal of the appeal.

The Court’s reply is precise:

2014 petitioner sought lighting at the hilltop (mosque summit) and challenged the propriety of lighting near Moksha Deepam.
The Court then rightly refused, because the mosque summit is Muslim property and that issue was settled by O.S. 4/1920/Privy Council.
In the present case, petitioners do not seek hilltop lighting or discontinuation of existing practice.
They merely seek additional lighting at Deepathoon, on the lower peak, outside Muslim-vested areas.

Thus, both:

the cause of action (site and rights asserted), and
the relief sought (additional lamp vs replacement of existing site)

are distinct. Res judicata does not apply.

(f) Executive Authority and Quashing of the Impugned Order

The communication denying lighting at Deepathoon was issued by the Executive Officer of the temple. The Court notes:

There is a Trust Board in place.
Decisions impacting core questions of temple rights, long-term rituals, and communal sensitivities cannot be taken unilaterally by an EO.

The Court therefore holds the EO’s communication to be:

without jurisdiction, and
quashes it on that ground.

However, since:

the Trust Board has not articulated a different stand, but has effectively aligned with the EO;
the legal position on title and distance from Dargah is clear; and
further delay could prejudice temple rights and festival schedule,

the Court finds that remand is futile and issues a direct mandamus for lighting at Deepathoon.

(g) Balancing Communal Harmony: Minimal Impact on Dargah Rights

The Court carefully considers the balance of convenience and impact on the Dargah:

Lighting at Deepathoon does not infringe any Dargah property or religious right; the Dargah has not shown how it would be adversely affected.
By contrast, failure to light at Deepathoon risks:
- temple’s property interests, and
- gradual erosion of the Hindu community’s rights over the hill as recognised by civil decrees.
Past peace committee minutes (01.12.2005) show the Dargah management had earlier expressed no objection to lighting at Deepathoon beyond 15 metres from the Dargah – consistent with the 1996 writ order.

Accordingly, the Court views present opposition as being driven by “vested interests” rather than genuine religious concern.

3. Impact: Likely Legal and Practical Consequences

(a) Strengthening Devotees’ Role in Temple Governance

This judgment significantly bolsters the position of devotees as:

persons having interest under HR&CE, with robust locus standi, and
legitimate actors who can:
- challenge temple management’s inaction or collusion, and
- seek restoration of proper festivals and rituals, especially where such practices serve to safeguard temple property.

It continues the trajectory set in cases like Bishwanath, T.K. Saminathan, and the Suo Motu 574/2015 order, but goes further in linking ritual conduct directly to property protection strategies.

(b) Template for Multi-Faith Hill and Shared Sacred Spaces

Thirupparankundram is a paradigmatic shared sacred space, with ancient Hindu and later Muslim institutions co-existing on a single hill. The judgment offers a nuanced template:

Respect historic civil decrees demarcating rights; do not reopen settled title.
Permit each community to fully exercise its rights within its own domain.
Do not permit either side to expand territorially under cover of “custom” or “status quo” when this contradicts decreed boundaries.
Recognise that ritual practices (like lighting Deepam) on one side’s property are not inherently hostile to the other side’s rights, provided they are:
- physically separated,
- non-intrusive, and
- consistent with long-standing religious traditions.

In this way, the judgment could guide courts handling similar disputes at other mixed-faith, hill-temple, or shrine complexes.

(c) Interpretation of the Places of Worship Act, 1991

While not a detailed exegesis, the Court implicitly clarifies:

The Act does not freeze every aspect of religious usage or ritual on or around a site; it freezes the “religious character” of the place as of 15.08.1947.
Actions by one community within its own titled property which:
- do not alter another community’s place of worship, and
- do not convert a non-Hindu site into a Hindu one,
are not barred.

This distinction will be important in future cases where expansion or restoration of rituals on temple land is challenged under the 1991 Act.

(d) HR&CE Administration: Limits on Executive Officers

The quashing of the EO’s decision sends a clear signal:

Executive Officers cannot unilaterally decide on matters involving:
- substantial legal rights of the temple,
- communal sensitivities,
- long-standing decrees, and
- core festival practices.
Such issues demand:
- involvement of the Trust Board, and
- conformity with prior judicial directions (e.g., 1996 writ order).

This can have systemic impact across Tamil Nadu’s HR&CE-administered temples, curbing overreach by EOs in politically or communally sensitive decisions.

V. Complex Concepts Simplified

1. “Certiorarified Mandamus”

The petitioner sought a “writ of certiorarified mandamus”, which is a compound expression commonly used in Indian writ practice:

Certiorari – to quash an impugned order/decision of an authority (here, the EO’s communication).
Mandamus – to direct that authority (or another public body) to perform a duty (here, to light the Deepam at Deepathoon).

So “certiorarified mandamus” means:

First quash the illegal order, then issue a positive direction to do what the law requires.

2. Res Judicata

Res judicata is the rule that a matter finally decided between parties by a competent court cannot be re-litigated. For it to apply, the:

parties (or their privies),
issues, and
reliefs

must be substantially the same.

The Court held that:

The 2014 case was about lighting on the mosque summit, and
The present case is about lighting at Deepathoon on the lower peak.

Different site, different right, different relief – so res judicata does not bar the present writs.

3. “Person Having Interest” (Section 6(15) HR&CE)

Under HR&CE law, this term is crucial because only “persons having interest” can:

challenge certain decisions,
file particular applications, or
be heard in temple-related proceedings.

A person is “having interest” in a temple if they:

are entitled to attend worship or services, or
in the habit of attending such worship, or
regularly partake in prasad or other distribution.

So ordinary devotees, not just trustees or hereditary priests, can have locus standi.

4. Section 63 HR&CE vs. Writ Jurisdiction

Section 63 HR&CE empowers the Joint Commissioner to decide questions like:

whether an institution is a temple, or
what are the customary usages in regard to certain rituals.

Respondents argued that a dispute about the customary place of lighting Deepam falls under Section 63. The Court disagreed, because:

The core question here is not which custom exists, but whether the temple must assert its undisputed property right at Deepathoon.
Since title is already decided by a civil decree, no fresh fact-finding about ownership or “whether it is temple land” is needed.

Thus, writ jurisdiction is appropriate.

5. Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991

This central law:

Freezes the religious character of places of worship as it existed on 15.08.1947.
Prohibits conversion of such character (e.g., turning a mosque into a temple).

It does not:

prevent a community from using its own property in new or revived rituals, so long as this does not alter another community’s place of worship.

In this case, lighting at Deepathoon:

takes place on temple land,
is consistent with Hindu tradition, and
does not interfere with the Dargah or its character.

Therefore the Act is not violated.

VI. Conclusion: The Significance of the Deepathoon Doctrine

This judgment is significant on multiple planes. Doctrinally, it crystallises a new dimension of temple law:

Temple property rights are not merely to be defended in court; they must be actively asserted through compatible ritual practice.
Devotees, as “persons having interest”, are entitled to demand not only preservation of existing festivals but restoration of practices that “ought to be” performed, where they are integral to the temple’s nature and protective of its rights.

By insisting that Karthigai Deepam be lit at Deepathoon:

The Court enforces the 1923/Privy Council decrees affirming temple title over nearly the entire hill.
It harmonises this title with:
- traditional Tamil religious practices, and
- the need to maintain communal harmony by respecting Dargah rights.
It reorients HR&CE administration toward a more rights-conscious and tradition-conscious stewardship, while constraining unilateral EO actions.

In the broader legal context, the judgment:

demonstrates how old civil decrees can and should be used to resolve modern communal and ritual disputes,
offers a careful, text-and-fact-based approach to the Places of Worship Act, 1991, and
embodies a vision in which devotees, not just state-appointed managers, play an active role in the protection and proper ritual use of temple assets.

Going forward, the “Deepathoon Doctrine” is likely to be invoked:

whenever temple lands, especially in mixed-faith environments, face encroachments or functional marginalisation, and
when devotees argue that certain rituals – particularly those symbolically asserting control (like lighting lamps, processions, or hoisting flags) – must be continued or revived as part of the temple’s legal and religious identity.

In sum, the judgment is a carefully reasoned assertion that:

Heritage, property, and worship are interlinked in Hindu temple law; and courts can, where necessary, compel temple managements to live up to their duty to protect all three.

The Deepathoon Doctrine: Temple’s Duty to Assert Property Rights through Karthigai Deepam at Thirupparankundram