Waqf Has No Standing: The Judgment That Freed Thiruparankundram's Lamp

The Madras High Court has delivered a stinging rebuke to the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and the state government, exposing a disturbing pattern of administrative overreach. On January 6, 2026, a division bench of the Madurai Bench dismissed 20 appeals filed by the State and the Waqf Board, upholding the right of Hindu devotees to light the Karthigai Deepam on the Thiruparankundram Hill. In a 170-page judgment, Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan declared that the Waqf Board had "no legal standing" in the matter, characterizing their sudden claim of ownership over the temple's "Deepathoon" (lamp pillar) as a "mischievous submission" made without a shred of documentary evidence.

The Context (How We Got Here)

The controversy erupted in December 2025, when the Waqf Board blocked the centuries-old tradition of lighting the Karthigai Deepam on the hill, claiming the site belonged to the neighboring Sikkandar Dargah. Despite a single judge (Justice G.R. Swaminathan) ordering the police to facilitate the festival on December 4, the state machinery—including the District Collector and Police Commissioner—refused to comply, citing potential "law and order" issues. This forced the cancellation of the lighting for the first time in memory. The division bench has now confirmed that the land in question was already declared Devasthanam (temple) property by a competent civil court years ago, and the Dargah itself was never even formally notified as a Waqf property under the Waqf Act.

The Key Players (Who & So What)

• Justices G. Jayachandran & K.K. Ramakrishnan: The judges did not mince words. They dismantled the state's defense, labeling the government's sudden concern for public peace an "imaginary ghost created for political convenience" to justify obstructing a lawful religious practice.
• The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board: The Board's credibility has taken a severe hit. The court noted they produced zero evidence of ownership and only raised the claim "for the first time in argument," suggesting a strategy of opportunistic litigation rather than legitimate property defense.
• The DMK Government: The ruling is a political indictment. By deploying the police to enforce a baseless claim against a court order, the administration is accused of prioritizing political appeasement over its constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law.

The BIGSTORY Reframe

While mainstream media focuses on the "Temple Rights Upheld" narrative, the deeper story is the "Pattern of Mischief." This is not an isolated incident. Just months ago, in September 2025, the same High Court rejected a Waqf claim over 1,100 acres in Tirunelveli, granting them only 2.34 acres based on actual records. The Thiruparankundram verdict exposes a systemic strategy: the Waqf Board makes expansive, undocumented claims on adjacent lands, and the state machinery treats these claims as valid until a court intervenes. It is a "land grab by litigation" model that relies on bureaucratic complicity.

Furthermore, the "State vs. Judiciary" crisis is alarming. The fact that the District Magistrate and Police Commissioner openly defied Justice Swaminathan’s December 4 order—risking contempt proceedings—reveals a dangerous breakdown in the separation of powers. When the executive branch refuses to enforce judicial orders to placate a political constituency, the courts become the only barrier against administrative authoritarianism.

The Implications (Why This Changes Things)

This judgment sets a rigorous precedent: the Waqf Board cannot simply "claim" land; it must prove valid notification under the Waqf Act. It places a burden of proof on the Board that may unravel hundreds of similar undisputed claims across Tamil Nadu. For the DMK government, the court's observation about "political ambitions" compromising state integrity is a judicial censure that will resonate in the upcoming election cycles.

The Closing Question (Now, Think About This)

If the state government is willing to defy a High Court order to enforce a "mischievous" claim, is the rule of law protecting citizens, or merely serving political alliances?

FAQs

What did the Madras High Court rule regarding the Waqf Board and the Deepathoon? On January 6, 2026, a division bench ruled that the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board had "no legal standing" to claim ownership of the Deepathoon (lamp pillar) on Thiruparankundram Hill. The court termed the Board's claim "mischievous" as it was raised without any documentary evidence or prior notification under the Waqf Act.

Why did the court criticize the Tamil Nadu government in the Deepam case? The court criticized the DMK-led state government for creating an "imaginary ghost" of law-and-order problems to justify blocking the Hindu festival. The judges noted that the state machinery defied a prior single-judge order to facilitate the lighting, suggesting the administration prioritized political convenience over constitutional duty.

What is the Deepathoon dispute in Thiruparankundram? The dispute involves a stone pillar (Deepathoon) located on the Thiruparankundram Hill, where Hindu devotees traditionally light a lamp for Karthigai Deepam. The Waqf Board recently claimed this pillar belonged to the neighboring Sikkandar Dargah, a claim the High Court rejected as baseless, confirming the land belongs to the Hindu Devasthanam.

Sources

News Coverage

• The Commune Mag – Mischievous submission: Madras High Court slams Waqf Board's claim
• The Print – "Imaginary ghost": Madras HC slams Tamil Nadu govt while upholding order
• Bar & Bench – Madras High Court upholds single-judge directive to light Karthigai lamp

Legal Precedent & Context

• Organiser – Madras HC exposes Waqf overreach: 1100 acre claim cut down to 2.34 acres
• LiveLaw – Madras High Court Thiruparankundram Deepam Row Judgment