The Madras High Court on Wednesday, 18 March 2026, witnessed sharp exchanges during the hearing of contempt petitions related to the failure to light the Karthigai Deepam atop the Thirupparankundram hill in Madurai, despite earlier court directions.

As reported in Bar and Bench, Justice GR Swaminathan remarked that he believes in respecting court orders, unlike local authorities in Madurai, who had failed to implement judicial directives in the matter.

The observation came after counsel representing the State submitted that a Division Bench of the Court had, on Tuesday, stayed all contempt proceedings pending before Justice Swaminathan. However, counsel appearing for the temple devotees argued that the stay order was limited only to the 4 December 2025 order passed by the single judge.

Justice Swaminathan stated that he would rely strictly on the text of the interim stay order placed before him and questioned the State’s interpretation of its scope. “How do I know what prayer you have made there?” the judge asked, when the State referred to a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) challenging all contempt proceedings.

The State maintained that the interim stay extended to the contempt proceedings mentioned in the CMP, which was recorded in the Division Bench’s order. It further suggested that a clarification could be obtained from the Registry to avoid ambiguity.

Rejecting the suggestion, Justice Swaminathan said, “It is not my job. I will go by the interim order you have produced before me. Why should I (ask Registry for more clarifications)? Is it my job? It’s not my job. It is my duty to obey whatever the Division Bench has passed. I believe in showing respect to court orders, unlike you people.”

The matter arises from a December 2025 ruling in which the Court held that a stone pillar on the Thirupparankundram hill is a Deepathoon belonging to the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple. The Court had directed that the traditional Karthigai Deepam be restored at the site, clarifying that such observance would not affect the rights of the nearby Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah.

Despite the order, the Deepam was not lit during the festival, prompting devotees to initiate contempt proceedings against the authorities.

During the hearing, Justice Swaminathan also questioned the absence of senior police officials who had been directed to appear in person. “Where are the police officials? Answer that first… Does Inigo (Deputy Commissioner AG Inigo Divya) and Loganathan (Commissioner of Madurai City Police, J Loganathan) think too much of themselves? I gave exemption only to trustees and the Collector; I didn’t give it to the police. Why they are not present before me?” he asked.

Addressing Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran, the judge further said, “Don’t we have to decide this (AAG) Mr. Ravindran? Don’t be so defiant. Don’t show your defiance against me.”

The AAG responded, “It is not so milord. I don’t know why Lordship is taking it like that.”

When the State again sought time to approach the Registry for clarification on the scope of the stay, the judge reiterated his position, stating, “I know how to respect the Division Bench order… I don’t want to see their (police officers) faces hereafter. I will deal with them in the manner known to law.”

The Court subsequently adjourned all three contempt petitions.

In its interim observations, the Court noted that it had earlier granted an adjournment based on a request from senior counsel representing the temple management, who had sought time to consider a suggestion for symbolic compliance with the Court’s directive.

“Since a request for adjournment came from a highly respected senior counsel and ground was only to consider a suggestion from the court, I had no reason to reject the request, even though the petitioners’ counsel opposed the same vehemently,” the Court recorded.

However, Justice Swaminathan observed that appeals had been filed during this adjournment period. The Court acknowledged that the respondents had the right to pursue legal remedies but pointed out that an earlier Division Bench had already dismissed an appeal filed by the District Collector and the Commissioner of Police, while leaving it to the single judge to determine whether there was wilful disobedience.

“Taking advantage of two-week window, appeals were filed. Respondents have right to avail judicial remedies. However, the fact remains that challenging the earlier, direction, the District Collector and Commissioner of Police had filed appeal. Said appeal was dismissed by Division Bench (earlier), and Division Bench had specifically observed that it is for single judge to test if disobedience of December 4 order was wilful or not,” the order stated.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on 9 April 2026, a day after the Division Bench is scheduled to hear the appeals challenging Justice Swaminathan’s orders.

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 Believe In Respecting Court Orders, Unlike You People”: Justice GR Swaminathan Slams Madurai Authorities In Thirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam Contempt Case appeared first on The Commune.

A pointed exchange between Justice GR Swaminathan and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh has been recorded in a judicial order of the Madras High Court during hearings in the Thiruparankundram Deepathoon contempt proceedings.

In a common order dated 4 March 2026, Justice Swaminathan rejected objections raised by Vikas Singh regarding the maintainability of contempt petitions and made unusually direct remarks about the senior advocate’s response during the hearing.

The contempt proceedings arise from alleged non-implementation of the court’s 1 December 2025 order directing the temple administration to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp at the Deepathoon on the hillock at Thiruparankundram Murugan Temple.

Vikas Singh Challenges Maintainability

Appearing for state authorities including the Madurai Police Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South), Vikas Singh argued that the contempt petitions could not be heard by the single judge.

He invoked the doctrine of merger, contending that the December 1 order had already been challenged before a Division Bench and that the operative order was now that of the appellate bench.

According to Singh, once the Division Bench dealt with the matter, any contempt petition would have to be filed before that bench rather than before the single judge.

Judge Rejects Argument

Justice Swaminathan rejected the submission and held that the legal precedent cited by Singh was no longer valid.

Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in United Labour Federation v. Gagandeep Singh Bedi, the judge noted that contempt jurisdiction of a High Court does not disappear merely because its order has been affirmed in appeal.

The court observed: “It is obvious that 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 17972 cited by Shri Vikas Singh is no longer good law. The doctrine of merger will not apply when the order passed by the Single Judge is confirmed by the Division Bench.”

Justice Swaminathan added that he expected lawyers appearing before the court to rely only on valid precedents.

“I would expect the counsel appearing before me not to cite case-laws that are no longer hold good.”

“I Expected Him to Feel Sorry. Far from It.”

The order also records a pointed remark by the judge regarding the conduct of the senior advocate during the hearing.

Justice Swaminathan noted that Singh was appearing through video conferencing when the court pointed out the latest Supreme Court ruling contradicting his argument.

The judge wrote that during the exchange, someone passed a copy of the Supreme Court decision to Singh while the hearing was in progress.

Despite being shown the ruling, Singh continued to press the same submission.

Recording the episode in the order, Justice Swaminathan observed: “Shri Vikas Singh appeared through VC and even as I was pointing out to him about the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, someone passed on to him a copy of it. I expected Shri Vikas Singh to feel sorry. Far from it. It is probably unlike the man.”

The judge noted that Singh nevertheless continued to argue that since the Division Bench had modified the order of the single judge, the contempt petitions could not be maintained before him.

Court says Police Resisted Implementation

Justice Swaminathan also recorded concerns that authorities had attempted to frustrate the implementation of his earlier order.

According to the court, a prohibitory order had been issued after the December 2025 judgment, which effectively prevented implementation of the direction to light the Deepam.

The judge stated that even after the prohibitory order was quashed, the police leadership in Madurai resisted implementing the court’s direction.

Warning Issued in Contempt Case

The court warned that if satisfactory responses were not filed, contempt charges would be framed against the officials concerned.

Justice Swaminathan directed that the police officers named in the proceedings remain present at the next hearing and fixed 18 March 2026 for further consideration.

In a broader caution recorded in the order, the judge also warned that even public dignitaries could be brought into the proceedings if reckless comments were made regarding the case.

“Before law all are one and no one can claim immunity merely because they happen to hold high offices.”

The matter has been adjourned for further hearing later this month.

Here’s the order passed by Justice G.R. Swaminathan of #MadrasHighCourt in contempt of court proceedings initiated before the Madurai Bench in connection with Thirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam issue pic.twitter.com/BjZztEgfL1

— Mohamed Imranullah S (@imranhindu) March 7, 2026

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

The post Justice GR Swaminathan Slams Sr Adv Vikas Singh Representing DMK Govt In Thirupparankundram Deepathoon Contempt Case appeared first on The Commune.

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.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday, 2 March 2026, strongly criticised remarks attributed to Tamil Nadu Minister for Minerals and Mines S. Regupathy in connection with the hilltop lamp-lighting issue, even as it declined, for now, to summon him in the contempt proceedings.

Hearing Sub Application (MD) No. 94 of 2026 in Contempt Petition (MD) No. 3657 of 2025, Justice GR Swaminathan examined a plea seeking to implead the minister as the fourth respondent/contemnor based on a statement reportedly published in the Dinamalar daily on 7 January 2026.

During the hearing, Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran submitted that courts ought not to take cognisance of unauthenticated newspaper reports. The court described this as “a welcome suggestion,” but observed that whether the minister actually made the statement could be verified only by issuing notice to him.

Noting that Dinamalar is a well-known newspaper with wide circulation, Justice Swaminathan recorded that when queried, the Additional Advocate General stated he had no instructions from the minister on the issue.

The court made strong observations on the reported remarks, stating that the statement attributed to the minister “deserves severe condemnation.” The judge emphasised that once a matter enters the judicial domain, parties must abide by the outcome of court proceedings.

“It is not for any other authority, let alone a State Minister, to dare to say that such lighting cannot be permitted,” the order said, adding that after a verdict is pronounced, the only option available to parties is to pursue appeal or review.

The court further remarked that while judgments may be criticised, one cannot assume the role of a regulatory authority after the court has spoken. Justice Swaminathan said it was “shocking” if such elementary knowledge was lacking on the part of a person who held the high office of Law Minister.

The judge also noted that no rebuttal had been issued by the minister so far and observed that his related comments had “evoked widespread derision.” The order recorded that despite the minister’s earlier claim that the government would file an appeal against the Division Bench order dated 6 January 2026, no such appeal appeared to have been filed to date.

However, the court ultimately decided not to summon Regupathy at this stage. Justice Swaminathan said he was desisting from issuing summons because the Madurai District Collector, who authored the prohibitory order, had filed an additional affidavit clarifying that the order was not intended to frustrate the court’s earlier directions.

Quoting the Collector’s affidavit, the court recorded that the prohibitory order under Section 163 of the BNSS, 2023 was issued keeping in mind law-and-order concerns in the hillock area and “did not contemplate hindrance” to temple authorities lighting the lamp in accordance with the High Court’s earlier judgment dated 1 December 2025.

Justice Swaminathan concluded that the minister appeared to have given “a mischievous political spin to the turn of events,” while noting that the question of whether the Collector’s prohibitory order amounts to contempt remains the subject matter of the main proceedings and is sub judice.

“In view of the stand taken by the District Collector that he rejects the theory propounded by the Minister, I deem it fit to close this Sub Application,” the judge ordered, while making it clear that the court would not hesitate to reopen the application if circumstances so warranted.

The sub-application was accordingly closed.

Here’s the order passed by Justice G.R. Swaminathan at the Madurai Bench of the #MadrasHighCourt today in the contempt of court proceedings related to the Thirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam issue. pic.twitter.com/ngvrocLdk8

— Mohamed Imranullah S (@imranhindu) March 2, 2026

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

The post ‘Mischievous Political Spin’: Madras High Court Slams DMK Minister Regupathy, Calls His Remark On Thirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam Issue ‘Severely Condemnable’ appeared first on The Commune.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday, 2 March 2026, heard the contempt proceedings related to the Thirupparankundram hill Deepam issue, during which Madurai District Collector Praveen Kumar appeared in person and tendered an unconditional apology.

The matter came up before Justice GR Swaminathan. During the hearing, the judge observed that the temple property in question does not belong to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department. He indicated that the case could be closed if the District Collector accepts responsibility and facilitates compliance with the court’s directions.

Appearing before the court, the Collector’s side submitted that the administration had no intention of deliberately disobeying the court’s order. It was argued that the prohibitory orders under Section 144 had been imposed purely in view of the prevailing law-and-order situation.

The government further contended that the restrictions were enforced after assessing the possibility of clashes between Hindu and Islamic organisations during the Teppam festival. Officials maintained that all decisions were taken in good faith to prevent any breakdown of public order and without any ulterior motive.

Justice Swaminathan, however, noted that the court’s earlier order did not insist that the Deepam be lit at the exact earlier location but had permitted lighting in an area belonging to Hindus. He then asked whether the District Collector would grant permission for five persons to go up the hill and light the Karthigai Deepam, stating that he would close the case if a clear answer was given.

In response, the government counsel sought time, stating that instructions from higher authorities would be required before furnishing names. The judge questioned the need for such consultation and asked why the court’s order had not yet been implemented.

Subsequently, the state sought two days’ time to file a detailed affidavit specifying the persons who would be deputed and the manner in which the court’s directions would be carried out. The court is expected to pass further orders after examining the government’s response.

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

The post Thirupparankundram Deepam Row: Madras High Court Questions Delay, Collector Tenders Unconditional Apology 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.

A recent article published in Frontline on the controversy surrounding the lamp-lighting (deepam) dispute at the sacred hill of Tiruparankundram near Madurai has triggered strong criticism from scholars and commentators, who have accused the magazine of presenting a historically skewed narrative on Murugan worship and the hill’s religious history.

Frontline’s Key Claims

The Frontline article situates the present dispute over lighting a deepam on a stone pillar near the Sikandar Badshah dargah within a broader historical and socio-religious framework.

According to the article:

Thirupparankundram hill has functioned for centuries as a shared sacred space, housing the Sri Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Jain relics, and the 13th-century Sikandar Badshah dargah.

The current controversy stems from demands by Hindus to light the Karthigai Deepam on the Deepathoon pillar located near the dargah, and not at the Moksha deepathoon which is a Nayak-era pillar being used currently near the Uchi Pillayar shrine.

The article stresses that the established custom of lighting the lamp on the Nayak-period pillar has been followed for over a century under the supervision of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department.

It highlights judicial intervention, including a Madurai Bench order permitting the lighting of the lamp on the contested pillar and subsequent legal escalation between the State government and the judiciary.

Beyond the immediate dispute, the article advances a larger civilisational thesis on Murugan worship. Drawing on academic voices such as Czech Indologist Kamil Zvelebil, it argues that:

Murugan originated as a tribal/Dravidian hill deity known as “Murukan” or “Velan.”

The deity was later absorbed into Sanskritised Hindu polytheism through processes described as “Sanskritisation” and “Brahminisation.”

This integration is portrayed as part of a broader shift that allegedly contributed to the decline of Jainism and Buddhism in Tamil regions.

The article characterises the evolution of Murugan into Skanda/Kartikeya as a “happy blend of two cultures,” symbolised through mythology, ritual transformation, and temple institutionalisation.

Busting The Lies Peddled By Frontline

In reality, the civilisational framing of the article rests on selective scholarship and ideologically loaded terminology.

Reliance on frameworks popularised by figures such as Kamil Zvelebil, particularly terms like “Sanskritisation,” “Hindu appropriation,” and “Vedic influence”, has led to a misreading of primary Tamil sources.

Even a basic reading of Sangam literature undermines the claim that Murugan and Skanda/Kartikeya were historically separate theological constructs.

Textual Evidence From Sangam Sources

There are multiple references from classical Tamil works that disprove the Frontline article. Here are a few:

Thirumurugatrupadai describes Murugan being worshipped through Vedic ritual procedures, stating:
“மந்திர விதியின் மரபுளி வழாஅ அந்தணர் வேள்வி ஓர்க்கும்மே” – interpreted as indicating worship through established Vedic mantras without procedural deviation.

Iconographic and theological attributes in Sangam literature align with pan-Indian Skanda traditions, including:

• Six faces – referenced in Thirumurugatrupadai
• Vel (spear) as primary weapon – noted in Paripadal
• Peacock mount – “விரை மயில் மேல் ஞாயிறு” (Paripadal)
• Rooster emblem – “சேவல் அம் கொடியன்” (Thirumurugatrupadai)

These features correspond closely with sculptural and numismatic depictions of Skanda across northern India such as:

• Yaudheya coinage from pre-Common Era centuries
• Kushan-period iconography
• Gupta-era sculptural traditions

– all of which depict Skanda with similar attributes, suggesting civilisational continuity rather than later assimilation.

Pan-Indian Presence Vs Regional Framing

Let us further disprove the portrayal of Murugan as an exclusively tribal or regional deity.

While Murugan’s association with the kurinji (hill) landscape in Tamil poetic convention is known, it is also noteworthy that Sangam texts reference structured sacred centres such as:

• Thirupparankundram
• Tiruchendur
• Swamimalai

These functioned as organised pilgrimage and worship sites even in the early historic period, contradicting the depiction of a purely tribal cult later institutionalised.

Counter-Framing The “Appropriation” Thesis

Now if the term “appropriation” must be invoked, it may be more applicable to modern academic attempts to confine a widely attested pan-Indian deity within a narrowly regional or racial framework.

Murugan/Skanda/Kartikeya traditions are evidenced across:

• Multiple linguistic canons
• Diverse dynastic patronage networks
• Pan-subcontinental textual traditions

thus, indicating theological continuity rather than cultural absorption.

When an article relies heavily on frameworks derived from persons like Kamil Zvelebil — employing terms such as “Sanskritisation,” “Hindu appropriation,” or “Vedic influence” — without the readings of primary Sangam sources, this is how it will look like.

Even a cursory… https://t.co/vxIUoietL7

— 𑀓𑀺𑀭𑀼𑀱𑁆𑀡𑀷𑁆 (@tskrishnan) February 15, 2026

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

The post The Hindu’s Frontline De-Hinduizes Thirupparankundram Lord Murugan As Tribal Murukan, Here’s The Truth From Sangam Literature appeared first on The Commune.

BJP Mahila Morcha members raised the question of whether Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, who had earlier spoken about “eradicating Sanatan Dharma”, was prepared to contest from Thirupparankundram in the upcoming Assembly elections.

A protest condemning the DMK government for failing to ensure women’s safety was held at Thirunagar under the banner of the Integrated Madurai District BJP Mahila Morcha. West District President Kala presided over the demonstration. District General Secretary Latha, Observer Inbarani, and Usilampatti General Secretary Dharanika were present in leadership roles.

State Vice-President Leelavathi, West District President Sivalingam, City President Mari, Constituency Organiser Rakkappan, and Mandal President Velmurugan addressed the gathering. Party functionaries Gopalakrishnan, Ilaiyaraja, Saravanan, and Solai Manikandan participated.

Speakers criticised DMK MP Kanimozhi, stating that she failed to acknowledge the sufferings of the people of Tamil Nadu while raising her voice over issues in BJP-ruled states. They alleged that the law-and-order situation in Tamil Nadu had deteriorated and that women, from three-year-old children to elderly women, were unable to step out and return home safely.

They further alleged that ganja and narcotic drug sales had increased across the state.

Source: Dinamalar

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

The post ‘Is Udhayanidhi, Who Spoke About Eradicating Sanatana Dharma, Ready To Contest In Thirupparankundram?’, BJP Mahila Morcha Challenges DMK Scion appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court on 9 February 2026 refused to interfere with the judgment passed by the Madras High Court holding that Muslims have no right to conduct prayers except during Ramzan and Bakri-Id at the Nellithoppu area, 33 cents of which is owned by the Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah atop the Thirupparankundram hills in Madurai district of Tamil Nadu.

The High Court, in its October 2025 judgment, had also ruled that animal sacrifice cannot be permitted in the area.

Challenging the High Court’s verdict, one M Imam Hussain, a worshipper at the dargah, approached the Supreme Court.

A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale, however, refused to interfere with the High Court’s order, terming it balanced.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that there has never been a law-and-order problem in the area.

Bhushan said, “… Ramzan and Bakri-eid festival days alone. That is what we are aggrieved by, the word alone…once the Nellithoppu area has been decreed by the Trial Court and affirmed by Privy Council, the High Court also records that affirmation. They say, Mohamaddens have been granted declaration of the title for the extent of 33 cents in the Nellithoppu area…now, the problem is, despite holding that the Nellithoppu area, the land belongs to Mohemmands, they have restricted prayers to Ramzan and Bakri-eid. Other conditions can be there, we maintain law and order, but there has never been a law and order problem.”

Justice Kumar responded that had there been no law-and-order issue, there would not have been a meeting of the Peace Committee.

“It seems to be a very very balanced order,” Justice Kumar said, with Justice Varale agreeing.

“We do not propose to interfere with the order. Without expressing any opinion on rights of the parties, the impugned order stands upheld,” the Bench observed in its order.

Background of the Dispute

The issue pertains to the location of places of worship at the Thirupparankundram Hill. The performance of namaz and animal sacrifice at the hill, which also primarily houses the temple Arulmighu Subramaniaswamy Thirukovil, has been a matter of controversy.

In June 2025, a two-judge Bench of the Madras High Court delivered a split verdict.

While Justice Nisha Banu refused to interfere with the practice of animal sacrifice, Justice S. Srimathy took a different view and held that the dargah should approach the civil court to establish its right to conduct Kandoori animal sacrifice and prayers during Ramzan, Bakrid and other Islamic festivals.

Justice Srimathy also observed that the practice of offering namaz at Nellithoppu was of recent origin. She said the congregation of a large number of persons for such prayers would obstruct the pathway leading to the Kasi Viswanathan temple and encroach upon other portions of the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy temple complex.

Considering the split verdict, the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court referred the matter to a third judge for final adjudication.

Third Judge Verdict

On October 10, 2025, the third judge ruled that Muslim devotees have limited rights to offer namaz only during Ramzan and Bakri-Eid.

However, the Court held that no animal sacrifice, cooking, or carrying or serving of non-vegetarian food would be permitted until a competent civil court decides on the customary practice of animal sacrifice at the hillock.

These orders were subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court as arbitrary and contrary to Article 25 of the Constitution.

Source: LiveLaw

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

The post Thirupparankundram Row: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal To Allow Prayers And Animal Sacrifice At Sikandar Dargah, Upholds Madras High Court Order appeared first on The Commune.

The District Collector of Madurai informed the Madras High Court on Monday (2 February 2026) that the prohibitory order issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to lighting a lamp atop the Thirupparankundram Hills was not intended to prevent the implementation of court directions but was passed to ensure that “no law-and-order situation” arose.

The submission was made before Justice GR Swaminathan, who was hearing a contempt petition initiated by the court over alleged non-compliance with an earlier order directing the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) atop the Thirupparankundram Hills.

During the hearing, the District Collector, the Commissioner of Police, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police tendered unconditional apologies and requested that the contempt proceedings be dropped.

It may be noted that on December 1, the single judge had directed the management of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light the lamp at 6 PM on December 3. Alleging that no arrangements had been made to comply with this direction, the petitioner-devotee moved a contempt petition on December 3.

The court thereafter permitted the petitioner, along with ten others, to light the lamp themselves and directed the Central Industrial Security Force to provide protection to the petitioners.

However, when the devotees went to the site to light the lamp, they were restricted by the authorities. The District Collector imposed a prohibitory order under Section 144, and the Commissioner of Police, citing the prohibitory order, refused permission for the lighting of the lamp. The prohibitory order was later quashed by the single judge.

Earlier, the court had summoned senior police and revenue officials and issued notice to the State, observing that the directions of the court had allegedly been disregarded on the ground of policing and public safety concerns arising from large gatherings.

On 17 December 2025, the court directed the Chief Secretary to file detailed affidavits, taking a responsible stand and explaining the reasons for non-compliance with the court’s order.

In a previous hearing, the court observed that three types of contempt were involved in the case. The first was the disobedience of the initial court order. The second was the issuance of the prohibitory order under Section 144 CrPC. The third, according to the court, was that even after the prohibitory order had been quashed, the officers had continued to resist the implementation of the court’s direction.

Criticising the conduct of the officers, Justice Swaminathan had earlier stated that he could not forgive the District Collector for issuing a prohibitory order that frustrated the court’s direction, and for resisting implementation even after the order was quashed. The court also observed that, until then, the officers had not shown any remorse.

When the matter was taken up on Monday (2 February 2026), affidavits were filed by the District Collector, the Commissioner of Police, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, stating that there was no wilful disobedience of the court’s order.

The court was informed that while the court had permitted only the Executive Officers of the temple to light the lamp, devotees had started gathering in large numbers, leading to the situation going out of control. According to the officers, the prohibitory order was passed only to prevent a possible law and order situation.

Senior advocate V. Giri, appearing for the officers, submitted: “Persons who have not been given such right started gathering in thousands and wanted to do it (light lamp). Maybe to accompany the Executive Officer. Then situation started getting out of hand…It’s easier to now say that the situation could have been handled better. But at that point of time, the crowd had to be controlled otherwise things wouldn’t have worked out. At that time, only a prohibitory order could have ensured implementation of court order.”

The court, however, orally expressed concern over the manner in which the Commissioner of Police had allegedly responded while preventing persons from climbing the hill to light the lamp. Referring to a recent magazine article, the court said that the officer was quoted as saying he was “ready to face the consequence”.

In response, Giri, along with Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran and Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan, submitted that if any officer had made such a statement, the court could directly question the officer present in court to ascertain whether the statement had been made and in what context.

After hearing the submissions, the court stated that while it was convinced with respect to the explanations offered by the other officers, it continued to have concerns regarding the conduct of the District Collector in issuing the prohibitory order despite the court’s directions.

Giri then requested the court to grant additional time to enable the District Collector to file an additional affidavit explaining his position.

After hearing the matter at length, the court adjourned the case to 2 March 2026 and dispensed with the personal appearance of all officers except the District Collector.

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 ‘Only A Prohibitory Order Could Have Ensured Implementation’, State Tells Madras High Court On Thirupparankundram Deepam Order appeared first on The Commune.