The political and legal war over the Thirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam intensified dramatically today as BJP leader K Annamalai launched a forensic, point-by-point rebuttal to Tamil Nadu Law Minister S Regupathy’s defence of the state government’s actions, accusing him of misleading the public and misrepresenting judicial history.

The confrontation stems from the Madras High Court’s December 1 order by Justice GR Swaminathan permitting a devotee to light the ritual lamp at the ‘Deepa Thoon’ (lamp pillar) on the hill. The state government, citing law and order, prevented the lighting and appealed the order.

What DMK Minister Regupathy Said

At a press briefing on 4 December 2025, Minister Regupathy presented the government’s position:

Adherence to 2014 Judgment: “We are acting according to the 2014 judgment,” Regupathy stated, referencing a Division Bench verdict from the tenure of former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa. He claimed this judgment settled that the Deepam must be lit only at its traditional location near the Uchi Pillaiyar temple.

Critique of New Petition: He criticised the recent court approach, saying, “Those who did not know this approached the court… as if they had discovered something new.”

Accusation of Political Motive: The Minister framed the issue as a political manoeuvre, alleging, “The actions of the Hindu organisations are viewed as the same as the actions of the BJP… These Hindutva organisations are currently confused about what issue to take up.”

Defence of Government Action: He justified the prohibitory orders and the appeal, implying that implementing Justice Swaminathan’s order would violate the settled 2014 ruling and lead to legal charges against the government.

Annamalai’s Rebuttal: Breaking Down the “Lies”

In a detailed counter-press conference, Annamalai dismantled the Minister’s arguments using colonial-era legal decrees and recent court records.

THE PROPERTY SETTLEMENT: The 1923 “Root Decree”

Regupathy’s Implication: That the hill’ ownership and ritual rights are ambiguous or governed only by recent judgments.

Annamalai’s Counter: Annamalai presented the foundational legal settlement—a 1920 Original Suit decree from a Madurai lower court, affirmed by the Privy Council in the 1930s. This decree, he stated, clearly demarcated:

The Muslims can control the Sikandar Dargah at the summit, the flat burial ground (Nelli Thoppu), and the connecting steps.

While the Hindus/Temple, it was noted that “The entire remaining hill belongs to the Hindu community, especially this temple.”

Annamalai argued that all subsequent judgments, including 2014’s, must be read in light of this century-old property title. The Deepa Thoon, he stressed, sits on this temple land, not on the dargah’s peak.

THE 2014 JUDGMENT: A Deliberate Misreading?

Regupathy’s Claim: The 2014 Division Bench verdict forbade lighting the Deepam anywhere but the Uchi Pillaiyar temple.

Annamalai’s Counter: This, he alleged, was the Minister’s key falsehood. He explained that the 2014 case concerned a plea to light a Moksha Deepam at the absolute highest summit of the hill-a point already decreed to be part of the dargah. The court rightly refused that specific request.

“The current petition is fundamentally different,” Annamalai stated. “It seeks to light the lamp at the Deepa Thoon, which is on a separate, lower peak over 15 metres away from the dargah. Justice Swaminathan’s order explicitly acknowledges this distinction and does not violate the 2014 ruling.”

THE “JUDICIAL OVERREACH” CHARGE: CISF Deployment

Regupathy’s Implication: That Justice Swaminathan erred by invoking Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) protection, encroaching on the state’s law-and-order domain.

Annamalai’s Counter: He provided a timeline: The judge’s December 1 order directed the state police and Collector to facilitate the lighting. They did nothing on December 1 or 2. Only after the devotee filed a contempt petition on December 3 did the judge, as a last resort, order CISF escort.

Annamalai cited the December 4 Division Bench of Justices Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan, which upheld Justice Swaminathan’s action, noting there was “nothing wrong” since the state authorities had failed in their duty. “This is not overreach; this is ensuring a court order is respected when the executive wilfully disobeys,” he said.

ALLEGED “MANIPULATION” OF RECORDS

Annamalai leveled a grave accusation: that the timing of the government’s prohibitory order (Section 144 CrPC/163 BNS) was doctored. He stated that the Division Bench, upon examining the original file, found the order was made to appear as if it was issued before the judge’s CISF direction, when it may have been created or antedated afterwards. “This is a serious finding of document manipulation by high-ranking officers,” he alleged.

THE “COMMUNAL NARRATIVE” VS. HISTORIC AGREEMENTS

Regupathy’s Framing: Portrayed the issue as Hindutva forces disturbing a Tamil festival.

Annamalai’s Counter: He cited a 2005 peace committee agreement, signed by Muslim representatives, allowing the Deepam to be lit 15 metres from the dargah. “The problem is not with the Muslim community or the dargah. The DMK government is manufacturing a communal clash for political benefit,” he asserted, contrasting this with the state’s inaction over recent provocative animal sacrifices at Nelli Thoppu.

Annamalai claimed that after the appeal was dismissed on 4 December 2025, BJP leaders attempting to proceed with the lighting were illegally arrested, as no valid prohibitory order or judicial stay was in effect at that time.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.