MADURAI (3 March 2026) — The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has suggested that the Tamil Nadu government allow a group of five court-appointed individuals to offer symbolic prayers at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) atop the Tirupparankundram hill. Justice G.R. Swaminathan, presiding over a contempt petition, clarified that this was a “suggestion and not a direction” to show respect for previous judicial orders while maintaining public order.
Judicial Compromise Amidst Contempt Proceedings
The suggestion follows a long-standing legal battle over the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp at the stone pillar, which the state has repeatedly blocked citing potential communal tension due to the pillar’s proximity to a dargah.
- The Proposal: Justice Swaminathan proposed that exactly five persons named by the court be permitted to reach the lower peak of the hillock.
- Duration: The entire exercise would be strictly confined to 15 minutes.
- Nature of Ritual: The court specified that these would be symbolic prayers only and would not involve the lighting of the lamp, which has been the core point of contention.
- State Response: The Madurai District Collector, K.J. Praveen Kumar, filed an additional affidavit stating that prohibitory orders (under Section 163 of BNSS) were intended only to prevent law and order issues, not to hinder temple authorities. The state has sought time until March 4 to respond to the court’s suggestion.
Rebuke of Minister S. Regupathy
The court took a stern view of statements made by the Minister for Minerals and Mines, S. Regupathy, who reportedly claimed the government would not allow the lighting of the lamp regardless of court orders.
Justice Swaminathan observed:
“Minister Regupathy has given a mischievous political spin to the turn of events… It is not for any other authority, let alone a state minister, to dare to say that such lighting cannot be permitted when a writ court has allowed it.”
The judge remarked that it was “shocking” for a former Law Minister to lack the elementary knowledge that only a higher court (Division Bench or Supreme Court) can override a judicial verdict. However, the court closed the sub-application for contempt against the Minister after the District Collector’s affidavit contradicted the Minister’s stance, though the judge warned he would not hesitate to reopen it if necessary.
Background: The Deepathoon Dispute
The conflict centers on whether the stone pillar is a religious “Deepathoon” or a secular survey marker.
- December 2025: A Single Bench ordered the lamp to be lit, rejecting the state’s “imaginary ghost” of communal unrest.
- January 2026: A Division Bench upheld the order, confirming the lower peak belongs to the temple.
- February 2026: The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s balanced approach, which allows regulated rituals while barring large public gatherings.
Sources
- Press Trust of India (PTI): “Permit 5 people named by court for symbolic prayers atop Tirupparankundram hill: HC to govt” (3 March 2026)
- Bar & Bench: “Shocking: Madras HC pulls up TN Minister S Reghupathy for comment on Thiruparankundram deepam issue” (3 March 2026)
- The Hindu: “Thirupparankundram row: Madras HC suggests 5 people named by court for symbolic prayers” (3 March 2026)
- Live Law: “Minister Ragupathy Gave Mischievous Political Spin To Thiruparankundram Issue: Madras High Court” (2 March 2026)
- Times of India: “Tamil Nadu deepam row: Madras HC suggests 5 court-picked people to offer prayers” (3 March 2026)
Leave a Reply