Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Tamil Nadu government has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Madras High Court order that permitted the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon, a stone lamp pillar located atop the Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai district. The deepathoon is situated near a Dargah on the hilltop. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed on June 11 after the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) government led by Chief Minister Vijay assumed office.
The SLP challenges a January 6, 2026 judgment of a division bench of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), which upheld an earlier order passed by Justice GR Swaminathan allowing devotees to light the lamp at the site.
The litigation originated from writ petitions filed by individuals seeking the right to light the lamp at the Deepa Thoon. The State Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, which administers the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple at the foothill, opposed the plea, contending that there was no established custom of lighting the lamp at the Deepathoon and that the ritual was traditionally conducted at a different location.
Justice Swaminathan had held that permitting devotees to light the lamp would not affect the rights of the Dargah and that preventing the ritual would infringe upon devotees' rights. Following allegations that the authorities failed to implement the order, contempt proceedings were initiated, during which the judge directed that the ritual be carried out with protection from the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).
The division bench subsequently upheld both the original order and the directions issued during the contempt proceedings. The bench rejected the state's contention that the Deepathoon was merely a survey stone erected during the British period and observed that the temple administration had a duty to preserve traditions. It also found that lighting the lamp would not create any law-and-order problem.
The matter returned before the High Court on June 22 during the hearing of appeals arising from the contempt proceedings. A bench comprising Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman orally questioned the need to prolong the dispute when a division bench had already upheld the order permitting the ritual.
“Nobody is affected here. The division bench has asked authorities to do something. What's difficult about that? Why do you want to keep this matter alive?” the bench orally remarked.
The court further suggested a negotiated resolution, stating: “You can sit together and give a quietus to this. There's a division bench order. We have to see the interest of people there. They reside there. They know ground reality. Ask both sides to sit together, mediate and find a solution.”
During the hearing, the state informed the court that it could not immediately implement the order and pointed out that appeals were pending before the Supreme Court. The government submitted that a decision had to be taken on whether to continue a practice that had allegedly existed for over a century.
The High Court was also informed that some petitioners had separately approached the Supreme Court against a portion of the division bench judgement directing temple authorities to undertake the lamp-lighting exercise, arguing that it affected devotees' rights. The Dargah authorities have also filed appeals before the apex court.
Taking note of the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court, the division bench adjourned the matter to July 27 and extended the interim stay on various orders passed by the single judge during the contempt proceedings.
Tracing the case
The controversy traces back to December 2025, when Justice Swaminathan directed the temple management to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon. Subsequent contempt proceedings led to further directions permitting devotees to perform the ritual themselves under CISF protection after allegations of non-compliance.
The court also quashed a prohibitory order issued under Section 144 CrPC, observing that it had been promulgated to prevent implementation of the judicial directive.
The matter then went to a division bench. In its January 6 judgement, the division bench made strong observations regarding the administration's concerns over public order. The bench stated that the “apprehension of law and order was an imaginary ghost created by state authorities for their convenience to put one community against the other under suspicion” and observed that the district administration should have used the issue as an opportunity to bridge differences between communities through mediation.
