NEW DELHI: The Tamil Nadu government has strongly opposed in the Supreme Court a petition seeking Archaeological Survey of India's (ASI) control over the Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy temple and Thirupparankundram hill and also changes in the traditional Karthigai Deepam celebrations.

The Karthigai Deepam controversy at the Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy temple at Madurai, centers on a dispute over where and by whom the sacred lamp (deepam) should be lit on the Thirupparankundram hill.

For decades, the traditional deepam was lit at the Deepa Mandapam near the Uchipillaiyar temple on the lower slopes. Hindu groups had sought permission to light the lamp at the Deepathoon, an ancient stone lamp pillar located higher up the hill, approximately 50 m away from the Hazrat Sultan Sikandar Badusha Auliya dargah.

In an affidavit filed before a bench of justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi, the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department opposed the plea which sought a direction to the ASI to take over the temple and the Thirupparankundram hill, saying the temple's ownership and the existing religious practices have been settled through decades of judicial proceedings.

HR&CE Commissioner T G Vinay said the hill is owned by the Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy temple, Thirupparankundram, to the extent recognised by a civil court decree of 1923, which was subsequently restored by the Privy Council in 1931.

The affidavit opposed three reliefs sought by petitioner Hindu Dharma Parishad seeking the handing over the entire temple and hill to the ASI, keeping a lamp burning round the clock at a stone pillar described as the Deepathoon, and illuminating the entire hill with lamps during Karthigai Deepam.

"A title so settled cannot be disturbed, and the administration of a religious endowment entrusted by statute to the HR&CE cannot be wrested away and handed over to the ASI upon a petition that pleads no ground in law and seeks the relief in the teeth of a concluded civil adjudication of title," the affidavit said.

"The department is the statutory custodian and administrator of the temple, and have at all times protected the temple, its properties and the rights of its devotees, including by asserting and defending the title of the temple in the civil courts over the course of a century, by conducting the worship and the festivals of the temple in accordance with the Agamas, and by making every arrangement for the smooth and peaceful conduct of the Karthigai Deepam each year in consultation with the police, fire and revenue authorities," it said.

On the contentious issue of lighting the Karthigai Deepam, the HR&CE commissioner maintained that the festival lamp has traditionally been lit at the Deepa Mandapam near the Uchipillaiyar temple and not at the hilltop or the stone pillar now being described as the Deepathoon.

The affidavit said that this practice has continued for more than 150 years in accordance with the Agamas and the opinion of the temple's Sthanikars (traditional temple functionaries).

It further referred to historical records of attempts made in 1862 and 1912 to light lamps near the summit of the hillock where the dargah is situated.

According to the affidavit, those attempts were resisted on the grounds that lighting a lamp at that location was not an established custom and could lead to a breach of peace.

The department has also disputed the claim that lighting the Deepam at the present location was merely a wartime substitute for an older hilltop tradition, describing the assertion as unsupported by documentary evidence.

The affidavit relied on earlier judicial proceedings, particularly the Madras High Court's directions issued in 1996.

According to the department, the high court had directed that the Devasthanam alone should light the Deepam, ordinarily at the traditional Deepa Mandapam near the Uchipillaiyar temple.

It had also stipulated that any change in the location would require a decision by the Devasthanam and prior permission from the competent HR&CE authorities, subject to specified distance requirements from the dargah and adjoining areas, the affidavit said.

Opposing the demand for an ASI takeover, the commissioner contended that archaeological protection at Thirupparankundram extends only to specified features, including the rock-cut cave and inscriptions, and not to the entire hill or the functioning temple.

The affidavit has also challenged the maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, saying that the petitioner has failed to establish the violation of any fundamental right.

The counter affidavit maintained that the temple administration has consistently conducted religious rituals and festivals in accordance with established practices, in consultation with the police, fire and revenue authorities.

It cautioned that permitting lighting at multiple locations on the hill, particularly in the vicinity of the dargah, could disturb the existing arrangements and create law-and-order complications at a site with a history of communal tension.

The plea of Hindu Dharma Parishad will now be taken up for hearing on November 17.