The hearing in the Thirupparankundram dispute before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court will continue on Thursday. Following the day’s proceedings, counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Niranjan Kumar, addressed the media and outlined the arguments raised in court.
Niranjan Kumar said counsel appearing for the Waqf Board had relied on the 1920 judgment to contend that Nellithoppu and the steps leading from Nellithoppu to the Dargah had been declared as belonging to the Dargah. He said the Waqf Board’s counsel argued that while members of the public could visit the area as ordinary visitors, religious rituals such as lighting a lamp could not be permitted.
Quoting the submission, Niranjan Kumar said the argument was that “if one comes as a friend, one can walk up the steps, go around the hill, visit the Dargah and the pillar, and return peacefully, but if one comes with an ideological or religious intention to light a lamp, it cannot be allowed.”
He said this submission was responded to by Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, who relied on the same 1920 judgment to clarify the extent of ownership declared by the court.
“Guru Krishnakumar pointed out that the 1920 judgment clearly states that the entire Thirupparankundram hill belongs to the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Devasthanam, except for Nellithoppu measuring 33 cents and the flight of steps leading from Nellithoppu to the Dargah,” Niranjan Kumar said.
According to him, the senior counsel submitted that the argument advanced by the Waqf Board was improper and unrelated to the issue of religious harmony. He also pointed out that the judgment records that the steps from the foothills up to Nellithoppu belong to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department.
Elaborating on the response, Niranjan Kumar said the petitioner’s side had never sought to prevent access to the hill or restrict the religious practices of others. “If we had any intention of hurting religious sentiments or politicising the issue, we could have taken the stand that no one should go beyond the foothills. We have never taken such a stand, and we will not take it in the future,” he said.
He further questioned the logic of permitting visits as ordinary access while objecting to the performance of a religious ritual. “Saying that someone can come as a friend but cannot perform a religious ritual if they come with that intent is not acceptable,” he said.
Referring to constitutional protections, Niranjan Kumar said Articles 25 and 26 guarantee every individual the right to profess, practise and propagate religion according to conscience. He said it was therefore “surprising” that such an argument was advanced by the Waqf Board’s counsel.
“The submission made today came as a shock to us. We have placed our response on record and will continue our arguments tomorrow. We are hopeful of a favourable order,” he said.
See what is being pointed out here by the counsel for the petitioner. Stunning ! #Tirupparankundram pic.twitter.com/tElAC11NpI
— 𑀓𑀺𑀭𑀼𑀱𑁆𑀡𑀷𑁆 🇮🇳 (@tskrishnan) December 16, 2025
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
