Thirupparankundram row: Supreme Court agrees to hear T.N. government plea, but gives the State no interim relief

The Supreme Court on Monday (August 3, 2026) decided to examine a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government headed by Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay challenging orders passed by the Madras High Court on lighting a lamp at a stone pillar near a dargah on the Thirupparankundram hill.

A Bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar issued notice to the Madurai District Collector, Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE), Sikkandar Badhusah Dargah, Hazarath Suitan, Sikkandar Badhsha Avuliya dargah, Archaeological Survey of India, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and the petitioner in the High Court, Rama Ravikumar, and others on a plea filed by the Commissioner, HR&CE, Chennai.

The State, represented by senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, said the High Court has created a new tradition. It was not up to the courts to do that.

The Bench queried whether there was a prevailing tradition of lighting the lamp on the pillar. The State said there were no historical records of lighting the lamp on the stone pillar.

“A dangerous situation has been propped up. If it is done once, it would be repeated in the years after,” Mr. Gupta said. 

The Bench refused to grant any interim relief to the court. It said the case would be heard comprehensively after the respondents file their affidavits in six weeks. The apex court listed the case for hearing in eight weeks.

The High Court’s Division Bench had, in early January this year, confirmed a previous Single Judge Bench order directing the Subramaniya Swamy Temple management in Thirupparankundram to light the Karthigai Deepam at the ‘deepathoon’ (stone pillar) atop the hill, besides the usual places.

The previous DMK regime in the State had been unable to convince the court that the lighting of the lamp may stir the hornet’s nest and lead to public disturbances. The Single Judge had dismissed the apprehensions of the State as an “imaginary ghost”. The Bench had remarked that such a turn of events would happen only with the State’s blessings, and not otherwise.

“It is ridiculous and hard to believe the fear of the mighty State that by allowing representatives of the Devasthanam [temple management] to light the lamp at the stone pillar near the top of the hill located within its territory of Devasthanam land, on a particular day in a year, will cause disturbance to public peace. Of course, it may happen only if such a disturbance is sponsored by the State itself,” the High Court Single Judge Bench had observed.

The High Court had urged the State to not “stoop” to that level to achieve a political agenda.

The court had reasoned that allowing a few persons to light the lamp and permitting worship was not an unmanageable task, the High Court had noted.