The Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre, the Tamil Nadu government, and other authorities on a petition challenging the ASI’s takeover of the Thirupparankundram temple. The plea also seeks daily lighting of the lamp placed on the ‘deepathoon’ (stone pillar).
In Tamil Nadu’s Deepam controversy, Madras HC Justice G R Swaminathan expressed personal disappointment and humorously noted his fascination with the issue. At a book launch for Kambar and Vaishnavam, he remarked, “Time for lighting the Deepam on Deepathoon will come.”
Madras High Court has reserved its verdict in the ongoing Thiruparankundram Hill dispute, where Hindu devotees and the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah are at odds over lighting the Karthigai Deepam atop the hill. The decision could impact religious customs and temple rights.
Justice GR Swaminathan questioned Senior Advocate Vikas Singh over reported remarks suggesting the judge had political ambitions during the Thiruparankundram lamp-lighting contempt hearing. The Madras High Court also sought an explanation from the State Chief Secretary over alleged non-compliance with court orders.
The Thiruparankundram Deepam row escalated as CM Stalin accused the opposition of cheap politics and possessing a riot mindset. The state has now moved the Supreme Court after challenging the Madras High Court’s order allowing the lamp lighting.
Today, On 5th December, CJI Surya Kant emphasized, “Don’t Want AI to Overpower Judicial Decision Making,” stating that AI can assist but must not replace human judgment. The Supreme Court allowed withdrawal of a plea seeking regulation of AI use in the judiciary.
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.
The Madras High Court issued a split verdict on animal sacrifices at the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah. Justice Nisha Banu upheld religious freedoms, while Justice S Srimathy required historical proof for the practice before 1920. The case will now be referred to the Chief Justice for resolution of the differing opinions.
