Madurai lamp lighting row: SC refuses TN bid to mention plea against Madras HC order
The Madras High Court had allowed a plea to light a lamp at the disputed ‘Deepathoon’ site on Thirupparankundram Hill, which houses the Arulmigu Subramanya Swamy Temple, on the occasion of Karthigai.
Tiruvannamalai: People take part in the 'Karthigai Deepam' festival, in Tiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu, Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2025. (PTI Photo) The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain an attempt by Tamil Nadu authorities to mention their special leave petition (SLP) challenging a Madras High Court order on lighting a lamp at the disputed ‘Deepathoon’ site on Thirupparankundram Hill, which houses the Arulmigu Subramanya Swamy Temple, in Madurai.
“No mentioning, thank you,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, presiding over a two-judge bench, told the counsel appearing for the petitioners. Mentioning refers to raising petitions that require urgent hearing.
The state’s attempt was stoutly contested by a counsel representing the worshippers. He told the bench that “the state is only playing a drama” and that they sought to mention it “only to tell the high court that they have mentioned before the Supreme Court”.
The counsel was apparently trying to convey that the state would use the mentioning before the Supreme Court to request the Madras High Court’s Madurai bench—where the contempt plea was listed for hearing at 10.30 am on Friday—to defer the matter.
The SLP was filed by Madurai District Collector K J Praveenkumar, who is in the eye of a storm and is facing contempt proceedings for allegedly defying a December 1 order by Justice G R Swaminathan, who allowed a plea to light a lamp at the ‘Deepathoon’ on the occasion of Karthigai festival on December 3.
However, the district authorities refused to allow the same, following which the single judge took up a contempt plea against Praveenkumar, Madurai City Police Commissioner J Lokanathan, and Temple Executive Officer Yagna Narayanan on December 3. “Contempt has been committed beyond dispute. The order of this court has been breached,” the court said.
Slamming the administration, the judge said, “I had passed the order sitting in single bench. So long as my order is not stayed or set aside by the hon’ble division bench of this court or by the hon’ble Supreme Court, it has to be complied with in letter and spirit. The executive cannot remain in hibernation.”
He then went on to allow the petitioner, Rama Ravikumar, to go up the hill with 10 other people to carry necessary articles to the ‘Deepathoon’. The court also asked CISF to provide them with security.
The district authorities, however, refused to allow the ritual and imposed prohibitory orders in the area. They also challenged the order before a division bench.
‘Ulterior motive to preempt contempt action’
On Thursday, a division bench of Justices G Jayachandran and K K Ramakrishnan upheld the single judge order. Dismissing the appeal, it said “we find this” was “filed with ulterior motive to preempt contempt action”. The court also justified the order for CISF cover, saying it “was provided only because the state police refused to give protection and comply with the court direction”.
After the division bench dismissed the appeal, Justice Swaminathan once again took up the matter and directed that the petitioner be allowed to light the lamp on Thursday itself. He also quashed the prohibitory orders and fixed it for hearing on Friday.
On Friday, Justice Swaminathan adjourned the contempt hearing to December 9, requesting a factual report from the CISF commandant who attempted to implement the court’s order but was unable to proceed.
Share
