Published Mar 17, 2026 | 7:55 PM ⚊ Updated Mar 17, 2026 | 7:55 PM
Thiruparankundram temple and the dargah.(Creative Commons)
Synopsis: Hindu organisations had filed a petition before the Madurai Bench, seeking action against government officials for alleged contempt of court. They contended that despite permission being granted to light a lamp at Thiruparankundram, the authorities did not allow it.
The Madurai Bench of the High Court, on Tuesday, 17 March, granted an interim stay on the proceedings in a contempt of court issued by a single judge. The case pertained the lighting of lamps at the Deepathoon (lamp pillar) atop the Thiruparankundram Hill in Madurai.
During the proceedings, the judges observed that such issues could be avoided if the Devasthanam itself undertook the puja and related rituals at Deepathoon.
The court also directed the government to submit details related to the order in the case.
The Bench of Justice Sathish Kumar and Justice Jothiraman will further hear the matter on 8 April.
Earlier, Hindu organisations had filed a petition before the Madurai Bench, seeking action against government officials for alleged contempt of court. They contended that despite permission being granted to light a lamp at Thiruparankundram, the authorities did not allow it.
During the hearing, counsel for Madurai District Collector Praveen Kumar submitted that permission was denied due to concerns over law and order. There was no intention to disobey the court’s order, and if the court viewed it otherwise, they were ready to offer an unconditional apology.
Following this, single-bench judge Justice GR Swaminathan had observed that the contempt proceedings could be closed if permission was granted to perform (puja) at the pillar located on the hill.
Appeals were subsequently filed against this order.
On the state’s behalf, it was submitted that the court had directed the government to make a decision on allowing five persons, to be recommended by the court, to perform puja at the site. It was further argued that new parties had been added to the contempt proceedings, which was against the directions of the Supreme Court.
In response, the judges questioned, “What is the difficulty in granting such permission?”
The state contended that two orders had been passed in the contempt case and that directions had been issued beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
On behalf of petitioner Ram Ravikumar and others, who sought permission to light the lamp, it was argued that the government had not made adequate arrangements to facilitate the lighting of the lamp, which led to the initiation of contempt proceedings.
The judges then directed the state to submit details of the court orders. They granted an interim stay on the single judge’s order in the contempt case and adjourned the hearing.
The bench also remarked, “If recommending five persons is an issue, why can’t the temple itself perform the puja? It is a small matter—this can be done to avoid further problems.”
A bid to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon stirred the controversy in December last. The Hindu Munnani insisted that lighting the lamp at Deepathoon was a ritual, while those opposed to it countered the argument. The Deepathoon is located near a dargah.
The Deepathoon itself became a point of contention after some claimed it was a survey-marker stone, while others said it was a traditional lamppost, remaining unused for over a century.
Those who opposed the lighting of the lamp on the Deepathoon said for about a century, the deepam (lamp) was lit near the Uchchipillaiyar temple — a peaceful practice being followed by the temple.
The tradition, they said, followed the agamas and was decided by the temple’s chief priest. The location has been chosen because it falls in the direct line of sight with the temple garba griha too.
The opposing faction said pro-Hindutva groups were demanding the deepam to be lit near a dargah, on a survey pillar. The case was filed to light the deepam near the dargah with malicious intentions to disturb peace. In 2014, a single-judge Bench had dismissed the case.
