TN Police Stop Lighting Of Deepam At Thiruparankundram Hill Despite High Court’s Contempt Order Granting CISF Protection
The Madras High Court had ordered that the ritual lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the ancient hill-top Deepathoon be permitted under CISF escort after the temple authorities failed to comply.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Madras High Court
Despite an order of the Madras High Court passed in contempt of court case allowing lighting of the Karthigai Deepam atop Thiruparankundram Hill, Madurai, by the Petitioner under protective escort by the CISF, Tamil Nadu Police prevented the ritual, triggering protests.
A Bench of Justice G. R. Swaminathan, in a contempt petition, passed the directions allowing the petitioners to light the deepam under CISF protection after the temple management and the state had failed to comply with its previous order.
While passing the order, the Bench had remarked: “The Executive Officer has made his position clear by his conduct. I, therefore, permit the petitioner to go up the Hill and light at the Deepathoon. I am conscious that this is only a symbolic gesture. But the importance of symbolism cannot be lost sight of. The petitioner can take ten other persons along with him, including the other petitioners. Such assistance is required to carry the articles. I direct the Commandant, CISF Unit, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court to send a team of CISF Personnel to offer protection to the petitioner and his associates in carrying out this court's order”.
Background
On December 1, 2025, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court heard writ petitions filed by devotees seeking restoration of the tradition of lighting the Karthigai Deepam at the ancient “Deepathoon”, a lamp-pillar on Thiruparankundram Hill historically used for ritual lighting. The temple authorities had decided, for this year, to limit the ceremony to the lower-hill mandapam near Uchipillaiyar shrine, citing proximity to the dargah atop the hill.
Justice Swaminathan, while rejecting their objections, referencing a 1923 civil decree affirming the temple’s title over the hill, upheld later by the Privy Council, held that the Deepathoon stood in unoccupied temple property and outside the dargah precinct. The Court quashed the Executive Officer’s decision to confine lighting to the mandapam and directed that the Deepam be lit at Deepathoon this year, ordering police protection to ensure enforcement.
Thiruparankundram Hill houses the centuries-old Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple at its foot and the Sikandar Badusha Dargah atop, a status that has long generated religious and communal sensitivities. Over decades, the traditional hill-top lamp lighting during the Tamil month of Karthigai was progressively curtailed, with lighting restricted to lower-hill structures near the mandapam.
Court’s Contempt Order And Aftermath
When, on the evening of December 3, the temple authorities lit the lamp only at the lower-hill mandapam and ignored the Deepathoon altogether, a contempt petition was filed. In a hearing shortly before the scheduled lighting time, the Court found that there had been a deliberate refusal to comply with its order. Justice Swaminathan observed that the Executive Officer had effected a “cock-a-snook at judicial mandate,” and dismissed any suggestion of bona fide misapprehension.
Declaring that ritual rights and heritage-linked temple property cannot be rendered hollow by administrative inaction, the Court permitted the petitioner, along with ten others, to proceed to Deepathoon under escort by the CISF. The bench emphasised that non-compliance with court orders, especially in matters touching religious practice and heritage, is not acceptable, and that state machinery must obey judicial directions until duly set aside.
Despite the Court’s reinstatement of the hill-top ritual and protective escort order, local police obstructed devotees’ ascent to Deepathoon on the evening the lighting was scheduled. Prohibitory orders were invoked, access was blocked, and when protesters tried to press on, law enforcement engaged in crowd-control measures.
Members of several Hindu organisations gathered at the foothill, attempted to breach barricades and move uphill. Violence broke out, two police officers were reportedly injured, about fifty protesters were detained, and authorities imposed Section 144 along with other restrictions.
The High Court had directed that the matter be listed on 04.12.2025 at 01:00 PM for reporting compliance.
Cause Title: Rama Ravikumar v. K.J. Praveenkumar & Others
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate R.M. Arun Swaminathan
Respondents: J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General, assisted by S.S. Madhavan, Additional Government Pleader, S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor
