The Tamil Nadu government has moved the Supreme Court against Madras High Court orders that allowed the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at a stone pillar near a dargah atop Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai, reviving a dispute that had been the subject of months of litigation and political debate in the state.
The Tamil Nadu Vetri Kazhagam government filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court on June 11, soon after the government led by Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay took office.
The state had challenged the original order passed in December last year, by a single bench judge Justice GR Swaminathan, which had allowed lamp lighting at the ‘deepathoon’ (stone lamp post) on the hill, and the order passed on January 6, 2026 by a division bench of the Supreme Court, which had upheld the single-bench order.
Read also | The TVK Gold Ring Scheme for newborns will be launched in Tamil Nadu on September 15
The case concerns the right of devotees to light the ‘Karthijai Deepam’, the traditional temple lamp placed on a stone pillar located about 50 meters from the dargah on Thiruparankandram hill. A group of devotees had moved the Madras High Court last year alleging that local police were preventing them from lighting the lamp even though they were traditionally worshiping at the site. They said that prohibiting these rituals violates their religious rights.
The DMK, which was ruling Tamil Nadu at the time, had opposed the petition, saying allowing the ritual could lead to law and order problems.
In a series of orders passed between December 1 and 9 that year, Justice Swaminathan dismissed these concerns and held that the rights of the dargah were not affected by the rituals. He also rejected state arrests, describing them as an “imaginary specter,” noting that unrest would only occur if it was “sponsored by the state itself.”
The case escalated when the fanatics initiated contempt proceedings after the authorities failed to implement the order.
On January 6 this year, a division bench of the Supreme Court upheld the single judge’s ruling and held that fears of communal tension expressed by the state lacked substance.
