The Supreme Court dismissed Hindu Dharma Parishad’s plea seeking permission to light a lamp atop the Thiruparankundram Hills, declining to interfere with the Madras High Court’s order. However, the Court granted partial relief by reducing the litigation cost imposed on the Parishad from Rs.50,000 to Rs.5,000.
The Supreme Court of India reduced the litigation costs imposed on Hindu Dharma Parishad from Rs.50,000 to Rs.5,000 while dismissing its Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging an order of the Madras High Court.
The matter was heard by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Aravind Kumar, and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.
The petition arose from an order dated April 9, 2026, passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) No. 10036 of 2026.
While the apex court declined to interfere with the substantive findings of the High Court, it found the amount of costs imposed to be excessive under the circumstances of the case.
The Court observed,
“While we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that imposition of costs quantified at Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) is on the excessive side and can be reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in the facts and circumstances of the case. Ordered accordingly.”
The Special Leave Petition was filed by Hindu Dharma Parishad against the Union of India and other respondents, seeking relief against the judgment delivered by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
The petition challenged the High Court’s decision and the costs imposed during the proceedings.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the High Court’s findings. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the bench found it appropriate to reduce the amount of costs.
With the reduction of costs from Rs.50,000 to Rs.5,000, the Supreme Court disposed of the matter and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The Court clarified that all other directions contained in the impugned High Court order would continue to operate without any modification.
Earlier, On December 1, 2025, Justice Swaminathan of the High Court directed the management of the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light the Karthigai Deepam at 6:00 pm on December 3.
The order specified that the lamp should be lit at a stone pillar on top of the Thirupparankundram hill, near a dargah.
Subsequently, the bench reprimanded the State Government for interfering with the implementation of the court’s directive. When the Tamil Nadu Government did not comply, a contempt petition was filed for non-compliance. On December 3, Justice Swaminathan permitted devotees to proceed to the hill and light the deepam themselves, with CISF personnel providing protection.
The bench further set aside the prohibitory order issued under Section 144 of the CrPC, and ordered the State’s Chief Secretary and the Additional Director General of Police (L&O) to appear before the High Court.
The Tamil Nadu Government filed a letter patent appeal challenging the contempt order. However, the appeal was rejected by a division bench of the High Court. Meanwhile, the single judge continued to hear the contempt petitions related to the State’s failure to comply with his order directing that the lamp be lit at the hill.
During one of the hearings, the judge even suggested that five individuals, whose names would be specified by the court, could be permitted to go to the hill and light a ceremonial lamp. Recently, though, the division bench stayed the contempt proceedings before the single judge.
Case Title: HINDU DHARMA PARISHAD v THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17085/2026