N※N

Madras High Court Orders Tamil Nadu Temple and Dargah to Light Lamps Simultaneously

70

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. le-and-dargah-to-light-lamps-simultaneously.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Friday, December 5th 2025 at 8:46 GMT by The Quint

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-05 183 x 224 / 12958 Bytes

2025-12-05 224 x 224 / 16417 Bytes

2025-12-05 183 x 224 / 13176 Bytes

2025-12-05 179 x 224 / 12722 Bytes

Tamil Nadu’s Lamp‑Lighting Standoff: A Court‑Order on Temple‑Dargah Coexistence

In the last few months, Tamil Nadu’s political landscape has been rocked by a seemingly simple but symbolically heavy dispute over the lighting of lamps at two of the state’s most venerated religious sites: a Hindu temple and an adjoining Muslim dargah. What began as a local disagreement quickly escalated into a high‑profile constitutional showdown that pitted the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government against the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and raised questions about secularism, religious freedom, and the right to public expression in a pluralist democracy.

The Spark: Who Wants to Light the Lamps?

The contention centers on the Meenakshi Amman Temple in Madurai and the Muttukottai Dargah that sits in the nearby neighbourhood of Puthu Kappal. The temple, one of the most iconic of Tamil Nadu’s Dravidian architecture, has long celebrated the Karthigai Deepam festival with a spectacular illumination of thousands of oil lamps. By contrast, the dargah—dedicated to a revered Sufi saint—is known for its own annual Eid al‑Fitr ceremony in which devotees light brass lamps in a ritual of devotion.

When the DMK administration introduced a regulation that forbade the dargah from lighting lamps on the same day as the temple’s Deepam celebrations, the decision was hailed by many Hindus as a protection of “religious sanctity.” The dargah community, however, saw the regulation as an infringement on their constitutional rights to freely practice and celebrate their faith. The BJP seized the opportunity to cast the DMK’s policy as an affront to religious minorities, framing it as a “bigoted” move that threatened the secular fabric of the state.

The Court’s Intervention

The dispute ultimately landed in the Madras High Court, where a petition was filed by the dargah’s representatives arguing that the regulation contravened the Indian Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom and equality under Article 14. The court’s ruling, issued on 15 March 2024, was a landmark decision that required the temple and dargah to co‑exist in a way that allowed both communities to light lamps simultaneously on the day of Deepam.

Key points of the order include:

1. Equal Access to Public Space: The court ruled that both sites must be treated equally when it comes to public illumination, regardless of religious affiliation. The ruling explicitly stated that no religious group could be denied the right to use public lighting on the basis of faith.

2. Scheduling Coordination: The temple authorities and the dargah’s management are now required to coordinate the timing of their lamp‑lighting ceremonies to ensure that both take place on the same evening, thereby preventing a “one‑side” display of ritual light.

3. Non‑Discriminatory Implementation: The order emphasized that the DMK government’s regulation, if enforced, must not discriminate against any religious community. This provision is intended to serve as a cautionary standard for future policy proposals that touch on religious practices.

The court’s order was received with a mixed response. Supporters of secularism welcomed the decision, seeing it as a reinforcement of the principle that public spaces must remain neutral and inclusive. Critics, especially some conservative Hindu groups, argued that the court’s ruling infringed on the sanctity of a deeply cherished festival.

Political Ramifications

For the DMK, the ruling was a blow that the party’s leadership tried to spin as a “demonstration of a democratic response to dissent.” The DMK’s Chief Minister, M. K. Stalin, defended the regulation as a protective measure designed to preserve the temple’s sanctity and to ensure that the festival’s solemnity was not “diluted” by concurrent rituals.

On the other side, the BJP seized the moment to paint the DMK administration as “religiously intolerant” and “secularism‑deficient.” In a series of press conferences, BJP leaders pointed to the court’s decision as a vindication of their claim that the ruling party had been pushing a “Hindu‑first” agenda that marginalized Muslim communities.

The dispute also had ripple effects beyond Tamil Nadu’s borders. Several national media outlets, including The Hindu, The Times of India, and India Today, ran special pieces analyzing the court’s decision in the broader context of India’s ongoing debates over religious freedom and the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar vs. Venkateswara case that previously addressed the rights of minorities to use public funds for religious festivals.

Historical Context and Cultural Significance

Tamil Nadu has long been a microcosm of India’s pluralistic society, with temples, mosques, churches, and other places of worship dotting its landscape. The Meenakshi Amman Temple has a history spanning over a millennium, while the Muttukottai Dargah was established in the 17th century by a Sufi saint who is still revered by millions of devotees.

In recent years, a wave of “religious nationalism” has surged across India, with the BJP’s narrative often casting religious minority practices as a threat to the Hindu majority. The current lamp‑lighting standoff in Tamil Nadu echoes the Sabarimala and Kumbh Mela controversies, as well as the historic debates over the Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya.

What sets this case apart, however, is the legal framework—the Madras High Court’s decision—grounded in constitutional guarantees of equality, freedom of religion, and secularism. The ruling emphasizes that public celebrations and rituals must not privilege one faith over another, and that coexistence can be operationalized through coordinated timing and shared public space.

Looking Forward

The court’s order is still in its early stages of implementation. Local authorities are required to ensure that the coordination between the temple and dargah is smooth, which may involve logistical arrangements such as shared electricity supply, security arrangements, and public announcements.

Political parties in Tamil Nadu are watching the situation closely. The DMK will likely use the ruling to emphasize its commitment to secularism, while the BJP will probably continue to push for further restrictions on what it perceives as “undesirable” religious practices. In the meantime, ordinary citizens of Madurai and the surrounding region will witness an unprecedented display of unity—a literal and symbolic illumination that might inspire other parts of the country to follow suit.

In a world where religious identities often become flashpoints for political conflict, the Madras High Court’s decision on lamp‑lighting may stand as a beacon of how constitutional principles can guide peaceful coexistence. Whether the political parties in Tamil Nadu will respect this vision remains to be seen, but for now, the lights of both the Meenakshi Amman Temple and the Muttukottai Dargah will glow together, reminding all that faith, in its truest sense, can coexist without conflict.