The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed that flowers be offered at the Deepathoon located at the summit of Thirupparankundram Hill, while hearing a contempt of court petition related to the ongoing Thirupparankundram dispute.

During the hearing, the Madurai City Police Commissioner, the Executive Officer of the Thirupparankundram Temple, and members of the Temple Trustee Committee appeared before the court in person.

The Trustee Committee informed the court that it required two weeks’ time to implement the earlier court order concerning the matter.

Responding to this request, the judge questioned whether the Trustee Committee should be added as a party to the contempt proceedings, noting that it had become evident that the committee bore responsibility for the delay in implementing the court’s directive.

The court also observed that the Executive Officer of the Thirupparankundram Temple appeared to be acting in favour of the Rajappattar Dargah administration in the dispute.

During the proceedings, the judge directed that flowers be offered at the Deepathoon at the summit of Thirupparankundram Hill, and granted time for authorities to take a decision on the matter and inform the court.

The case has been adjourned to 18 March 2026 for further hearing.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Flags Non-Compliance In Thirupparankundram Deepam Row; Orders Flower Offering At Deepathoon On Thirupparankundram Hill appeared first on The Commune.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi met the grieving family of Poornachandran, the young devotee who tragically took his own life in protest over the denial of permission to light the sacred Karthigai Deepam at the historic Thiruparankundram Murugan Temple.

The visit, part of Modi’s visit to Tamil Nadu, came amid heightened political tensions in the state ahead of assembly elections, as the Prime Minister used the occasion to sharply criticize the ruling DMK government for what he described as “mafia-like” politics and insensitivity toward Hindu devotees.

Poornachandran, a 40-year-old resident of Madurai, set himself ablaze in December 2025 near the Tallakulam police station, reportedly in deep anguish after authorities refused to allow the traditional lighting of the holy lamp (Deepathoon) during the Karthigai Deepam festival at the ancient cave temple dedicated to Lord Murugan.

The incident sparked widespread outrage among Hindu groups, with BJP and Hindu Munnani leaders earlier providing financial assistance and condolences to the family.

Poornachandran left behind his wife, Thirumathi Indumati Poornachandran, and their two young children.

During his visit to the bereaved family earlier today, PM Modi offered his deepest sympathies and shared the family’s pain.

Speaking at a public rally in Madurai later, the Prime Minister recounted the emotional meeting: “Before coming here, I went to Thiruparankundram to get the darshan of Lord Murugan for the divine experience. I prayed for the prosperity of Tamil Nadu and the entire nation. At the same time, my heart felt heavy, and I remembered the young devotee who sacrificed his life. Today, I met his wife, Thirumathi Indumati Poornachandran, and their two little children. I felt their sadness and offered my deepest condolences to them.”

Modi emphasized the spiritual significance of the act, framing Poornachandran’s sacrifice as a symbol of unwavering devotion: “No matter what the DMK does, the truth and devotees of Lord Murugan will win. Truth will prevail.”

He accused the Tamil Nadu government of suppressing religious sentiments and turning a blind eye to the pain of Hindu devotees, linking the incident to broader allegations of anti-Hindu policies under the DMK regime.

“DMK’s dreams of returning to power will turn into nightmares,” he declared, vowing that faith and justice would ultimately triumph.

The Prime Minister’s visit and remarks have resonated strongly with BJP supporters and Hindu organizations in Tamil Nadu, who have long campaigned against what they call the DMK’s “anti-devotee” stance on temple rituals and festivals. Social media footage of the family meeting circulated widely, showing Modi consoling the widow and children, with many praising the gesture as a display of empathy and leadership.

The Karthigai Deepam controversy at Thiruparankundram—stemming from a Madras High Court directive and subsequent administrative hurdles—has become a flashpoint in Tamil Nadu politics. Hindu outfits argue it reflects systemic bias against traditional practices, while the state government maintains that decisions were taken to maintain law and order.

As Tamil Nadu gears up for crucial elections, PM Modi’s personal outreach to the Poornachandran family and his pointed attack on the DMK are seen as efforts to consolidate support among Hindu voters and highlight cultural issues. The visit underscores the Prime Minister’s strategy of blending spiritual symbolism with sharp political messaging in the Dravidian heartland.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post PM Modi Meets Family Of Poornachandran Who Sacrificed His Life Protesting Against DMK Govt Banning Lamp Lighting At Thirupparankundram Deepathoon appeared first on The Commune.

Police in Madurai on Monday, 12 January 2026, arrested senior BJP leader H Raja and 11 party functionaries after allegedly “violating restrictions” and attempting to proceed to the Sthala Vruksham (sacred tree) Kallathi tree area on Thirupparankundram hill.

According to police sources, Raja had visited the Kasi Viswanathar temple located on Thirupparankundram hill for worship. He was accompanied by Madurai West district BJP president Sivalingam, district observer Rajarathinam, and party functionaries Sivaprabakaran and Harikaran, among others.

After reaching the hill, Raja asked police for permission to proceed towards the Kallathi tree to verify whether a flag allegedly installed by the dargah management had been removed. Police denied permission, citing ‘restrictions’ in the area. Following this, Raja and BJP leaders engaged in an argument with police personnel and allegedly proceeded towards the restricted area in violation of the ban.

Police later stopped the group and brought them down to the foothills, after which Raja and 11 others were arrested for violating prohibitory orders.

Speaking to reporters after his detention, Raja alleged that the situation had been unnecessarily escalated by the Madurai district collector and the city police commissioner. He claimed that the Supreme Court had permitted the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (lamp pillar) and that the issue could have been resolved if the order had been implemented.

Raja further alleged that a flag had been installed on the Kallathi tree, which he described as a sacred tree, by the dargah management with police protection during the night. He claimed that a court had ordered the removal of the flag and alleged that the directive had not yet been implemented.

He warned that if the flag was not removed, Hindu devotees and Murugan worshippers would gather and remove it themselves.

Raja also criticised Tamil Nadu Law Minister S Regupathy over remarks related to the Deepathoon, and accused the DMK government of being hostile towards Hindu religious practices. He demanded that the Karthigai Deepam be lit on the Deepathoon before the Thai Poosam festival, failing which he said the issue would become a political matter during elections.

Source: Hindu Tamil

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post BJP Leader H Raja And 11 Others Arrested For Attempting To Check Dargah Flag Installed On Kallathi Tree At Thirupparankundram Hill appeared first on The Commune.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday, 6 January 2026, strongly rebuked the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board for making a “mischievous” claim over the centuries-old stone lamp pillar (Deepathoon) at the centre of the Thirupparankundram hill dispute.

When the court was hearing of a batch of appeals following the December 1 order which permitted Hindus to light the lamp on the Thirupparankundram Hill, the counsel for the Waqf Board surprisingly argued that the lamp pillar belonged to the Waqf – a submission that the court said damaged the Board’s credibility and cast doubt on its offer to mediate.

Court: “Mischievous Submission” Without Locus

In its 170-page verdict, a division bench comprising Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted: “For the first time in the course of argument in the intra Court appeals, on behalf of the Waqf a mischievous submission was made that the lamp pillar belongs to Dharga.”

The court added that this claim “had deterred and added yet another reason for the other side to be skeptical about the offer made by the Waqf Board for Court monitoring mediation.”

No Legal Standing

The judges clarified that the Waqf Board had no legal standing in the matter for several reasons:

• The ‘Sikkandar Dharga’ is not a notified Dharga or mosque under the Waqf Act.
• The entire Thirupparankundram hill is a protected archaeological site under the Ancient Monuments Act.
• Under Section 3-D of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, any Waqf notification is void if the property is a protected monument.

“The Waqf Board, as on date have no locus in this matter,” the court ruled.

Ownership Settled by 1920 Decree

The bench reaffirmed that the lamp pillar is situated within the portion of the hill legally owned by the Arulmigu Subramanian Swamy Temple, as decreed by the civil court in O.S.No.4 of 1920 and later confirmed by the Privy Council.

The judges recorded that the assertion of exclusive ownership over the hill or parts of it by the dargah and the Waqf was a “claim raised intermittently whenever disputes arise,” but one that had “failed to secure judicial affirmation in earlier proceedings.”

“The location of the pillar is in the portion of the hill declared by a competent civil Court as property of the Devasthanam.”

Additionally, the judgement noted that the presence of the Sikkandar dargah, Jain caves, and other later structures did not divest the temple of its larger proprietary and religious rights over the hill. The court pointedly remarked that these structures were “not of contemporaneous origin” and had arisen “much after the hill had attained religious significance for Hindu worship.”

With this observation, the court has dismissed the Waqf’s claim as legally untenable, reaffirmed temple ownership over the Deepathoon, and raised doubts about the Waqf’s neutrality in future mediation efforts.

The pillar will now be used for the Karthigai Deepam lighting under the supervision of the district administration, with no role for the Waqf Board.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Mischievous Submission”: Madras High Court Slams Waqf Board’s Claim Over Thirupparankundram Deepathoon appeared first on The Commune.

In a sweeping and unusually evocative judgment, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on January 6, 2026, upheld the lighting of the traditional Karthigai Deepam atop Thirupparankundram Hill, opening its common order with a line from the Bible that set the tone for what followed.

“God said, ‘Let there be light’, and there was light.”

Quoting Genesis 1:3, the Division Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan framed the dispute not merely as a question of administration or law and order, but as one involving faith, history, religious practice, and the limits of State power.

The judges described the phrase as symbolising “creation, hope, and divine power,” before proceeding to dismantle the objections raised by the Tamil Nadu government and other authorities to the lighting of the Deepam on the hill’s stone lamp pillar, known locally as the Deepathoon.

The judges observed that a dispute which could have been resolved through dialogue had instead been “escalated by some disgruntled elements,” adding pointedly that attempts were made “to demoralize and demean the judiciary with the might of power.”

In a striking passage, the Bench thanked a senior counsel for reminding the court of the maxim Fiat justitia ruat caelum – let justice be done though the heavens fall.

Background: Appeals Against The Single Judge’s Order

The batch of appeals arose from a December 1 order of a single judge directing the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple administration to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon situated on top of Thirupparankundram Hill. When the order was not implemented on the festival day, the single judge permitted devotees to light the lamp themselves.

This led to appeals by the State government, police authorities, HR&CE Department, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, and the Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah, all of whom sought to stay or overturn the direction.

They argued that the order would disturb public peace, that it was against Agama Shastra, it would invent a new custom, and that the matter should be decided by a civil court, not a writ court.

A Hill Laden With History, Faith, And Contestation

The court devoted substantial space to documenting the physical, historical, and religious character of Thirupparankundram Hill, underscoring that the dispute could not be understood without appreciating its layered past.

The hill, rising to about 1,050 feet, houses the ancient Subramania Swamy cave temple at its foothills, several Hindu shrines along its slopes, Jain caves with Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions, water springs (sunai), and the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah at its highest peak. The judges noted that these structures were built in different periods, not contemporaneously, reflecting successive layers of religious presence rather than exclusive ownership.

Drawing from archaeological records, scholarly works, and earlier judicial inspections dating back to the 1920s, the Bench observed that Hindu religious structures predated later Jain and Islamic constructions on the hill. The presence of the Dargah, the court noted, did not fragment the hill into separate entities, rejecting the claim that there were “two hills” belonging to different communities.

“This is one hill consisting of two peaks and few summits at different levels,” the court held, adding that misconceptions about separate hills had no factual basis.

Privy Council, Precedent, And Property Rights

A significant portion of the judgment revisited earlier litigation, particularly the landmark 1931 Privy Council decision in Re Madura, Tiruparankundram Devasthanam vs Alikhan Sahib. Quoting extensively, the Bench recalled how the Privy Council had described the entire hill as sacred, worshipped as Swamimalai or God’s Hill, and treated as part of the temple’s religious domain.

The Privy Council had categorically held that the unoccupied portions of the hill had been in the possession of the Devasthanam “from time immemorial,” and that British authorities themselves had refrained from interfering with temple rights.

By reproducing these findings, the High Court made it clear that the claim of the State or other bodies that the Deepathoon lay outside established Hindu religious usage was untenable.

No Iota Of Doubt

Summarising the past submissions by all the parties involved, judgements made before in the same case, and also noting some other court orders, the court stated, “No one can have even an iota of doubt about the fact that lighting lamp at the hill on the full moon day of Tamil month, Karthigai is a religious usage and
part of Tamil Culture. The said culture and usage is followed throughout the State and even in neighboring States from time immemorial. Therefore we hold that, writ petitions seeking enforcement of a religious practice in protection of
fundamental right deserve to be entertained.”

The court added, “The prime reason to hold so is that the issue touches upon the religious freedom to profess and practice, which is protected under Article 25 (1) and also the freedom of expression protected under Article 19 (1) (a) as well as Article 29
(1) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees citizens of all sections, residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own, shall have the right to conserve the same.”

The High Court’s Critique Of The State Government

The Division Bench delivered sharp observations on the role and conduct of the Tamil Nadu Government and its district administration:

a) Failure To Uphold Constitutional Duties

“The State, through the District Administration, should have taken this as an opportunity to bridge the difference between these two communities… Unfortunately, due to lack of conviction, all these years the peace meetings have paved way only for widening the mistrust.”

b) Imaginary Threats To Public Order

Perhaps the most scathing passages were reserved for the government’s repeated invocation of public peace.

“It is ridiculous and hard to believe that a mighty State fears that permitting representatives of the Devasthanam to light a lamp on one day in a year would disturb public peace,” the judges remarked.

The court went further, issuing a warning that bordered on an indictment: “Such disturbance can happen only if it is sponsored by the State itself. We pray no State should stoop to that level to achieve its political agenda.”

“The apprehension expressed by the District Administration regarding probability of disturbance to the public peace is nothing but an imaginary ghost created by them for their convenience sake and to put one community against another under suspicion and constant mistrust.”

c) Accusation Of Bias and Inaction

“The Government failure to bring about comity among the two communities but to keep the line of separation is once again exhibited… The State administration had failed to take note of the observations made by the Learned Judge… The State expects the Temple devotees to surrender for existence.”

d) Refusal To Demarcate Boundaries

The Court noted that the Government repeatedly refused to survey and demarcate the Dharga area despite judicial suggestions, thereby perpetuating the conflict.

The “Deepathoon”: A Lamp Pillar, Not A Survey Stone

A major contention was whether the stone pillar was a Deepathoon (lamp pillar) or a British-era survey marker. The Court categorically rejected the survey-stone theory.

“The submission that the Deepathoon is a figment of imagination of the Judge or the devotees is wholly unacceptable,” the court held, noting that the pillar is a visible physical structure supported by records and site inspections.

Visual Evidence: The pillar had a carved design, a rectangular base, and a bowl-shaped top suitable for holding oil and wick.

Historical Records: The Court examined Great Trigonometrical Survey records (1879) and noted that survey markers were simple dots and circles on rock, not ornate pillars.

State’s Contradiction: The Court observed that even the State and HR & CE Department did not consistently claim it was a survey stone, instead calling it a “granite stone” or a “Jain lamp post.”

The court stated, “The stone pillar with provision to light lamp, in Tamil called as ‘Deepathoon’. The location of the pillar is in the portion of the hill declared by a competent civil Court as property of the Devasthanam. The Waqf Board, as on date have no locus in this matter. For the first time in the course of argument in the intra Court appeals, on behalf of the Waqf a mischievous submission was made that the lamp pillar belongs to Dharga. This plea we would say, had deterred and added yet another reason for the other side to be skeptical about the offer made by the Waqf Board for Court monitoring mediation.” 

The court also said, “The Deepathoon is not an ordinary granite stone pillar or survey stone as contended by the appellants. Neither it is Jain lamp pole. The Deepathoon has a cavity carved in such a way to hold the cotton stick and oil. The pillar has always been identified as ‘Deepathoon’ or ‘Seegara thoon’.”

Rejection Of “Agama Shastra” Opposition

The Court dismissed the argument that lighting the lamp elsewhere was against Agama Sastra.

The court stated, “The Deepathoon meant for lighting lamp to the visibility of surrounding villages, is the most appropriate place to light the lamp during Karthigai Deepam festival. In fact, lighting Maha Deepam at the motchadeepam pole, is against Agamasastra. It is always appropriate to light the mahadeepam during Karthigai month at a vantage point visible to nearby villagers as far as possible. Lighting deepam outside the Temple on one of the peaks in the hill is not in violation of any ‘Agamasastra’. It is well settled by judicial pronouncements, that the essential practices and non-essential practices for a religion has to be considered, when faith and belief of worshippers is involved.”

No Textual Evidence: The Government relied on hearsay from Sthanikars but produced no scriptural proof that the lamp must be lit only straight above the sanctum sanctorum.

Precedents From Other Temples: The Court cited Thiruvannamalai and Thiruchirapalli, where lamps are lit on hilltops visible to the public, not aligned with the deity.

Symbolism Of Light: The Court referenced Thirumoolar’s Thirumanthiram, which describes light as the personification of Lord Shiva, reinforcing the spiritual significance of lighting lamps at elevated sites.

Judicial Overreach? No – Restoration Of Custom

The appellants argued the Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by “inventing a new custom.” The Division Bench firmly disagreed, “The Learned Judge has not invented any new custom… The order impugned is restoration of the custom already in existence.”

The Court highlighted that the 1996 judgment in W.P.No.18884 of 1994 had already permitted the Devasthanam to consider alternate sites for lighting the lamp, subject to a 15-meter buffer from Dharga properties.

Waqf Board And Dargah Claims: Court Finds No Legal Basis

The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and the Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah argued that the stone pillar belonged to the Dargah and that allowing the lighting of the Deepam would interfere with their enjoyment of land allegedly granted to them in 1920.

The Division Bench rejected this claim in clear terms.

“The submission that the stone pillar belongs to the Dargah has not been substantiated by any formidable evidence,” the court held.

The judges noted that mere assertions of ownership, without documentary proof or historical continuity, could not override long-recognised temple rights.

Importantly, the Bench pointed out that this claim only deepened mistrust rather than resolving the dispute: “The plea that the pillar belongs to the Dargah only adds to the scepticism of the other side regarding the mediation process,” the court observed.

The Bench also rejected the argument that the single judge had denied the Dargah an opportunity to present its case.

“We find no merit in the contention that sufficient opportunity was not afforded. The appellants had ample occasion to place their materials before the Court,” it ruled.

Missed Chance For Mediation

Rather than treating the issue as a flashpoint, the Bench said the district administration and Waqf authorities should have facilitated dialogue.

“The administration ought to have taken this as an opportunity to bridge the gap between the communities through mediation,” the court noted.

Instead, it observed, prolonged indecision and inconsistent positions allowed suspicion and tension to fester.

Final Directions: “Only Light, Not Fight”

The Court disposed of all appeals with the following operative directions:

• The Devasthanam shall light the lamp at the Deepathoon during Karthigai Deepam.
• No public congregation will be allowed; only a limited team from the Temple, with police and ASI coordination.
• The District Collector shall supervise the event.
• All activities must comply with the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
• The 15-meter buffer is only a safety guideline, not an absolute restriction.

The Court concluded with a hopeful note: “We hope, by implementing the below directions, which can be suitably modified whenever festival of respective community falls, then there will be only light and not any fight.”

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Let There Be Light”: From Quoting Bible To Exposing Mischevous Agenda, Here’s How Madras High Court Dismantled DMK Govt’s Arguments In Thirupparankundram Deepam Case appeared first on The Commune.

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) on Tuesday (6 January 2026) upheld a single judge’s order directing the lighting of a lamp at the ancient stone pillar (Deepathoon) atop the Thiruparankundram Hills, located near the Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah.

A division bench comprising Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan, while pronouncing its judgment, held that the earlier order of the single judge was not hit by the principle of res judicata, as the issue of lighting the lamp had not been conclusively decided in previous rounds of litigation.

No Evidence Against Lighting of Lamp, Court Says

The bench observed that the appellants, including the State government, police authorities, and the Dargah, had failed to place any “formidable evidence” to establish that agama shastras prohibited the lighting of the lamp at the site.

Addressing the repeated claim of a potential law-and-order problem, the court made strong observations, stating, “Ridiculous and hard to believe the fear of mighty state that by allowing representatives of devasthanam to light a lamp at the stone pillar 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. We pray no state should stoop to that level to achieve their political agenda.”

The bench further remarked that the submission claiming the pillar belonged to the Dargah had only deepened mistrust, noting, “The submission that pillar belongs to dargah added another reason for the other side to be sceptical about the offer made by the workforce monitoring mediation.”

‘Imaginary Ghost’ of Law and Order

Rejecting the State’s justification, the court said the apprehension of disturbance was unfounded, “Apprehension of law and order was an imaginary ghost created by state authorities for their convenience to put one community against the other under suspicion.”

The bench added that the district administration ought to have treated the dispute as an opportunity to bridge the gap between communities through mediation, rather than escalating tensions.

ASI Clearance Required

Noting that Thirupparankundram Hill is a protected monument, the bench directed that any activity must comply with the Archaeological Survey of India Act. It clarified that the lamp could be lit and the number of persons permitted could be fixed after consultation with the ASI.

Background of the Case

The judgment was delivered in a batch of appeals challenging a December 1 order of a single judge, who had directed the management of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon on top of the hill.

Finding that the order was not complied with on the day of Karthigai Deepam, the single judge, on the same day, permitted the petitioner devotees themselves to go to the hill and light the lamp. However, the Deepam was not lit even then, and contempt proceedings are currently pending.

Appeals by State, Police, Dargah, and Waqf Board

Aggrieved by the single judge’s directions, the State government, police authorities, the Dargah, and the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board approached the division bench.

The State contended that the devotees had no enforceable legal right to seek lighting of the lamp and argued that Article 226 of the Constitution could not be invoked to alter a long-standing custom.

The Advocate General submitted that the writ petition was not a public interest litigation but a private interest litigation, stating that the court’s concern should be limited to the petitioner’s rights and the statutory obligations of the authorities.

The Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple argued that while a devotee could approach the court to protect an existing right, no such right had been established in this case.

The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department informed the court that the decision to light the lamp rested with the devasthanam, adding that the department was willing to consider any application made by the petitioners.

The Dargah submitted that the minority community had been facing difficulty in enjoying the land allotted to it in 1920. It was also argued that the single judge did not grant adequate opportunity to the Dargah to present its case and had allegedly framed a case not pleaded by any party.

The Joint Commissioner of the HR&CE Department contended that the pillar was not originally intended for lighting the Karthigai Deepam, but was used by saints who once resided in the area.

Meanwhile, the Madurai District Collector and the Police Commissioner argued that the Deepathoon itself was a “figment of imagination” of either the devotees or the court and highlighted the practical difficulty of accessing the pillar by climbing steps through the Dargah premises. They maintained that implementation of the single judge’s order would disturb peace in the area.

Rejecting these submissions, the division bench dismissed the appeals and upheld the single judge’s order, subject to compliance with ASI norms.

Source: LiveLaw

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “No State Should Stoop To That Level For Political Agenda”: Madras High Court Upholds Justice GR Swaminathan’s Order To Light Deepam Atop Thiruparankundram Hill, Slams DMK Govt  appeared first on The Commune.

Residents of Thirupparankundram have intensified their protest, demanding that the deepam be lit at the Deepathoon atop the Thirupparankundram hill, after a court order permitting the ritual continues to be ignored by the authorities of the DMK government in Tamil Nadu.

As part of the protest, people living in the foothill areas have begun tying yellow flags bearing images of Murugan and the rooster symbol outside their homes and lighting lamps at their doorsteps. Women from several households were seen putting up the flags to publicly register their opposition.

Tensions escalated a day earlier when residents confronted police personnel, alleging discriminatory treatment. Protesters questioned why permission was granted for hoisting flags on the hill during the Sandhanakoodu festival associated with the nearby dargah, while Hindus were denied permission to light the lamp at the Deepathoon despite a judicial order. Following the argument, some residents were detained by the police and released later that night.

This is not the first such symbolic protest. Similar yellow flags bearing the rooster emblem were raised across Thirupparankundram about two weeks ago to press the same demand.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Tamil Janam (@tamiljanam)

A resident, speaking to the media, said the protest was solely about asserting a lawful right.

“We are asking only for our rights. A court order was given. If the authorities had allowed the lamp to be lit on the very day the order was passed, none of these problems would have arisen. We are not here to fight anyone. We are only demanding our rights, there is nothing wrong with it. From ancient times, on this very hill, our ancestors have been lighting the lamp. From our childhood, we have seen the deepam being lit near the Uchchi Pillaiyar temple. There is nothing wrong in asking for this right.”

The resident further alleged that restrictions imposed earlier had severely affected daily life in the area.

“We will definitely continue (this struggle) in a firm manner. There will be no change in this. Because if we give up our rights, there is no meaning in us living here. All these days you kept the barricade closed; why have you opened it now? Under what law have you opened it now? You who did not respect the law till now, under which law have you opened this barricade now? By imposing section 144, you kept us shut in as if we were in jail. Water did not come, the garbage lorry did not come. To send our children to school, how much we struggled. For what reason have you now opened this barricade? Tell us. You who did not respect the government, under which government law have you now opened this barricade? Now all the general public can go to the hill, is it not? For us to go and light the lamp, we do not need anyone’s permission. On our own hill, for our Murugan, we will go and light the lamp.”

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Tamil Janam (@tamiljanam)

Another protester struck a defiant note, stating that the agitation would continue until the lamp was lit at the summit.

“Even if I fall from this hill, even if I die, I will not leave without lighting the lamp. Until the deepam is lit at the very top, this protest will continue. If they allow it, we will withdraw. Otherwise, we will keep protesting.”

She stressed that the movement was not directed against any community.

“We are not opposing Muslims. They are our people too. Let them light their lamps, and let us also light ours. This is not about caste or politics. We are ordinary people standing together for Murugan.”

Drawing a parallel with earlier mass movements in Tamil Nadu, another resident added, “Just as people protested for Jallikattu and won, this struggle for lighting the lamp on this hill will continue. The government and the administration is showing partiality. They must definitely give up this partiality and come forward at least a little for the sake of the Tamil people, for the sake of the Hindu people. All we are asking is permission to light a lamp. If the lamp is lit, what harm will come of it? The deepam must be lit.”

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Tamil Janam (@tamiljanam)

The situation at Thirupparankundram remains tense, with residents maintaining that their protest will not be called off until the hilltop lamp is officially permitted to be lit in accordance with the court’s direction.

Source: Dinamalar

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Allow Us To Light The Lamp”, Thirupparankundram Residents Intensify Hilltop Deepam Protest appeared first on The Commune.

DMK-Congress ally Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) has announced a protest in Madurai on 22 December 2025, alleging that right-wing organisations are attempting to foment communal tensions in Thirupparankundram.

In a statement, VCK president Thol Thirumavalavan said the protest was intended to safeguard communal harmony in the region. He stated that it was the responsibility of democratic forces to preserve the peaceful atmosphere in Thirupparankundram and prevent what he described as attempts by divisive and “Sanatana” forces to disturb communal harmony.

Referring to the ongoing Deepam-related dispute at Thirupparankundram, Thirumavalavan cited a court order concerning the issue and claimed that lighting a lamp on the Deepathoon located close to the mosque atop the hill could lead to unrest. He warned that such actions had the potential to escalate tensions in the area.

The VCK leader appealed to democratic and secular groups to participate in the December 22 protest in large numbers, stating that collective action was necessary to ensure peace and communal harmony in the region.

Source: Times of India

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post DMK-Congress Ally Thirumavalavan’s VCK To Hold Protest Against Lighting Of Deepam At Deepathoon Atop Thirupparankundram Temple appeared first on The Commune.

Madras High Court Justice GR Swaminathan on Wednesday, 17 December 2025, strongly questioned Senior Advocate Vikas Singh over remarks allegedly made by him suggesting that the judge had political ambitions, during the hearing of a contempt of court petition connected to the Thirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam dispute.

The contempt proceedings arise from an earlier order passed by Justice Swaminathan directing the lighting of the traditional Karthigai deepam on the Deepathoon situated atop the Thirupparankundram hill in Tamil Nadu. The contempt plea alleges that officials of the DMK government (state) failed to comply with the court’s directions.

When Vikas Singh, appearing for the State authorities, began his submissions through video conferencing, Justice Swaminathan interrupted him and sought clarification on certain statements attributed to Singh in media reports of the previous day’s hearing.

The Court referred to Singh’s earlier submissions questioning the basis of the judge’s order permitting the lighting of the lamp. According to reports published by Bar & Bench, Singh had allegedly remarked, “I don’t understand where has the judge gone, what all he is doing in this process. If he wants to contest elections”.

When Justice Swaminathan raised the issue, Singh responded that he did not understand what the judge was referring to. The judge then clarified that he had personally read the newspaper reports mentioning Singh’s alleged statement insinuating that he intended to contest elections.

Justice Swaminathan told Singh, “What appeared in the papers today. That I planned to contest the elections… repeat that again now. Repeat,”

In response, Singh stated that he did not wish to repeat any such statement. The judge, however, continued to press the issue and asked, “Would you mind repeating the words uttered yesterday before the division bench before me right now?”

Singh declined and replied, “No. I don’t want to.”

Chief Secretary Questioned Over Non-Compliance

During the same hearing, Justice Swaminathan also questioned the State Chief Secretary, N Muruganandam, seeking an explanation for the alleged failure of district-level officers to implement the court’s order regarding the lighting of the lamp at Thiruparankundram.

The Chief Secretary had been summoned after the Court observed what it described as a recurring pattern of non-compliance with judicial orders in matters related to the Thiruparankundram dispute. However, the Court clarified that Muruganandam was not being called upon to argue the correctness of the original order.

Justice Swaminathan stated, “Be clear in your mind that I have not called you regarding the primary order passed by me in the main repudiation. I have called you only to get your feedback on what happened subsequently,”

The judge said he viewed seriously the suggestion that district collectors may have deliberately attempted to bypass or nullify the writ order passed under constitutional authority. He asked the Chief Secretary to clarify whether the collectors acted independently or on instructions from higher authorities.

“I want you to make a statement as to whether these district collectors have ordered entirely on their own or on instructions.”

In response, Muruganandam told the Court that he would gather information from the concerned officers and submit a detailed written explanation. He assured the Court that the State government had no intention of disobeying judicial orders.

He explained that government officers sometimes face genuine challenges such as lack of funds, law-and-order concerns, or situations involving conflicting judicial orders. Muruganandam said, “In such cases, the officers know they have the right of appeal… In all the three instances mentioned by my lord, I think the officers have gone on writ appeal and the writ appeal is being heard.”

He added that maintaining public order was the government’s top priority and sought four weeks’ time to file a comprehensive written response.

Court Cites Earlier Case, Expresses Displeasure

Justice Swaminathan also referred to another case involving a litigant named Vincent, relating to a family property dispute between brothers. The Court recalled passing an interim order restraining the construction of a church on unpartitioned land without prior permission.

The judge noted that when the order was allegedly violated and the matter was brought back before the Court, the government had again taken the stand that enforcement was not possible due to law-and-order issues.

Expressing strong displeasure, Justice Swaminathan remarked, “What is this? When it comes to taking action against a church, lots of (issues) come up. When enforcing the Court’s order, your duty is to tackle the law-and-order issue and not throw the Court’s order aside,”

The Court directed the Chief Secretary to take a clear and responsible stand on the next date of hearing and to ensure that the written response comprehensively addresses all concerns raised by the Court.

The matter was adjourned for further hearing.

Source: Law Chakra

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “I Planned To Contest Elections? Would You Mind Repeating The Words In Open Court?“ Justice GR Swaminathan Takes On Senior Advocate Vikas Singh Representing DMK Govt In Thirupparankundram Deepathoon Row appeared first on The Commune.

Senior advocate Valliyappan, appearing for the Hindu devotees in the Thirupparankundram hill dispute, on Wednesday accused the DMK government in Tamil Nadu of advancing multiple and contradictory claims about the deepathoon at the site without producing any evidence. He made the remarks while speaking to reporters after the court hearing.

Addressing the media, Valliyappan said the State government, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department and the police had all taken a stand against the petitioners and, in effect, against the temple itself. He said their position so far had been that there was no such structure as a “deepathoon” (lamp pillar) at the site.

“Everyone is saying different things. Some say it is a survey stone, some say it belongs to the Jain period, and some say it is just a granite stone,” Valliyappan told reporters. He alleged that if the government’s claims were correct, it should have produced documentary or expert evidence before the court. “They have not submitted any evidence to show that it is a survey stone or a Jain structure. These arguments are being made only to divert the issue,” he said.

Valliyappan asserted that the pillar stood on land identified as temple property and not within the Dargah area. He said the devotees had submitted photographs of similar deepathoon (lamp pillars) from around twenty temples, including Murugan temples at Palani and Thiruthani and several Shiva temples in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, to show that such structures were traditionally installed in a similar arrangement.

Explaining the ritual practice, the senior advocate said a copper vessel was placed atop the pillar with a cloth wick and ghee or oil and that the lamp was lit only once a year, on the day of Thirukarthigai. He said lighting the lamp for a single day would not cause harm or disturbance to followers of any faith and could be done under temple supervision and police protection.

Referring to historical practices, Valliyappan said that in earlier times, when there was no electricity, lighting a lamp on a hilltop served both practical and spiritual purposes, with the flame visible from a distance and symbolising the divine jyoti. He also referred to the traditional practice of lighting the ‘sokkappanai’ at the foothills before lighting the lamp at the summit.

Rejecting the claim that the pillar belonged to the Jain period, Valliyappan said Jains generally performed penance in caves and did not construct temple structures of this nature. He reiterated that the State had failed to substantiate its claims with evidence and was advancing shifting explanations to avoid recognising the structure as a temple deepathoon.

The case relating to the Thirupparankundram hill dispute is ongoing before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

“Tamil Nadu Govt did not submit evidence for calling it survey stone or Jain structure, they did so to divert issues.”

– Hindu Munnani’s lawyer Valliyappan on Thriupparankundram row pic.twitter.com/69Mo4z1ySL

— News Arena India (@NewsArenaIndia) December 17, 2025

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “State Has Not Produced Any Evidence In Court That It Is A Survey Stone Or Jain Pillar,” Say Devotees On Deepathoon appeared first on The Commune.