Today, on 5th December, In Thiruparankundram Deepam Row, CJI Surya Kant said the plea must “be numbered and listed” as he responded to TN officers citing an urgent listing request before the Supreme Court during Friday’s proceedings.
A Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed by senior Tamil Nadu officer K. J. Praveen Kumar, challenging the Madras High Court’s order that mandated lamp-lighting at Thiruparankundram hill.
This matter was brought before the Supreme Court on Friday for urgent consideration. It was presented to a bench consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
During the brief discussion, the opposing counsel claimed that Tamil Nadu was merely “staging a listing drama” to later inform the High Court that the case had been escalated to the Supreme Court.
The State’s counsel countered this assertion by clarifying that he was simply requesting a listing and did not grasp the objections raised by the other party.
The State emphasized that it was seeking an urgent hearing for its challenge.
CJI Surya Kant responded that the Court would see and decide on the request for urgent listing, adding, “No mentioning, let it be numbered and listed.”
Earlier, On December 4, 2025, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had reaffirmed its previous directive that the annual Karthigai Deepam should be lit atop Thiruparankundram Hill, specifically at the ancient stone pillar known as Deepathoon.
The Court dismissed objections from the State and highlighetd the importance of enforcing judicial orders, even in light of communal sensitivity concerns.
This issue has been contentious, as the lamp was traditionally lit at a “Deepa Mandapam” near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple on the hill an established location for over a century.
However, this year, petitioners argued for the ancient Deepathoon to be used as the lighting site, citing ritual tradition and temple ownership as justification for their claim.
In a detailed 49-page ruling, Justice G.R. Swaminathan concluded that Deepathoon is outside the area historically claimed by the nearby Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah, to which the Muslim community asserts rights.
The Justice determined that Deepathoon falls under the jurisdiction of the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, thereby dismissing claims that lighting the lamp would infringe on the dargah’s rights.
The court rebuked arguments suggesting that existing civil suits or prior judgments restricted this action, reminding parties that ancient decrees like a 1923 ruling upheld by the Privy Council acknowledged temple ownership over unoccupied sections of the hill, which exclude the dargah precincts.
Since Deepathoon is outside the dargah’s defined area, the court concluded there is no necessity for new civil litigation.
Importantly, the High Court highlighted that lighting a lamp, as a symbolic religious act, “cannot offend anyone’s sensibilities” when done securely and without infringing on protected areas.
Justice Swaminathan instructed temple authorities to light the Deepam at Deepathoon “from this year onwards” and mandated that the state police ensure adequate protection to enforce this order.
Despite the clear directive, the ritual event on the evening of December 3 was met with defiance from both the temple administration and police.
Instead of lighting the lamp at Deepathoon, the authorities maintained the traditional practice at the Uchi Pillaiyar temple. The temple’s Executive Officer, citing concerns over communal harmony and public order, reportedly ignored the court’s ruling.
Case Title: K J PraveenKumar v. Raja RaviKumar
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
