The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court suggested that the Tamil Nadu government allow five persons named by the Court to offer symbolic prayers for 15 minutes near the Deepathoon atop Thiruparankundram hill. The Court clarified that the proposal is only a suggestion, not a direction, amid the Karthigai Deepam contempt proceedings.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has made an important observation in the ongoing dispute related to the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) located atop the Thiruparankundram hill.
While hearing a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with its earlier order, the Court suggested that the government may allow a limited symbolic prayer near the stone pillar as a gesture of respect to the Court’s previous directions.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice G R Swaminathan. The contempt petition was filed claiming that the authorities had failed to implement the High Court’s earlier direction regarding the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam atop the Deepathoon. During the hearing, the Court clarified that it was not insisting on lighting the lamp at this stage, but suggested an alternative symbolic arrangement.
The Court stated that if the government intended to show respect to the earlier judicial order, it could permit five persons named by the Court to go to the lower peak of the hill where the Deepathoon is located and offer symbolic prayers for a short duration.
Responding to the issue, Justice Swaminathan observed on March 2,
“I suggest that respect to the order passed by this court can be shown by permitting a group of five persons to be named by this court to go to the lower peak of the hillock where the Deepathoon lies so that the symbolic prayers can be offered.”
He further clarified the limited nature of this suggestion by stating,
“I further indicate that this entire exercise can be confined to 15 minutes. This is only a suggestion and not a direction,”
he added.
The Court made it clear that this proposal was not a mandatory direction but merely a suggestion to balance the situation while maintaining law and order.
The issue arose after the Madurai Collector, K J Praveen Kumar, filed an additional affidavit before the Court. In his affidavit, he stated that prohibitory orders were issued on December 1, 2025, to prevent any possible law and order problems.
According to the Collector, the purpose of the order was not to stop temple authorities from implementing the High Court’s direction to light the lamp at the stone pillar, but only to maintain peace and prevent disturbances.
However, the Court observed that the police authorities appeared to rely entirely on the Collector’s prohibitory order. The judge remarked that the police had “took shelter” behind the collector’s prohibitory order and made it clear that they were only enforcing the collector’s order.
The case also took a political turn after State Minerals and Mines Minister S Regupathy made public statements saying that the government would not permit the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon. The Court strongly reacted to these remarks.
Justice Swaminathan observed that “Regupathy has given a mischievous political spin to the turn of events. Whether the issuance of prohibitory order by the collector is an act of contempt or not is the subject matter of court proceedings. The rule of sub-judice will kick in. Let the minister bear this principle in mind.”
The Court made it clear that public comments on matters which are under judicial consideration should be avoided, especially when the issue is sub-judice.
At the same time, the judge closed a sub-application that sought initiation of contempt proceedings against Minister Regupathy for his reported statements. However, Justice Swaminathan warned that he would not hesitate to reopen the sub-application if required in the future.
The hearing in the main contempt petition has been adjourned to March 4 for further consideration.
This development in the Thiruparankundram Karthigai Deepam issue highlights the delicate balance between religious practices, administrative powers to maintain law and order, and the need to respect judicial directions. The High Court’s suggestion of allowing symbolic prayers for a limited period reflects an attempt to maintain harmony while ensuring that the authority of the Court is upheld.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Thiruparankundram Hill
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
