New Delhi, Aug 3 The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a plea of the Tamil Nadu government challenging the Madras High Court order allowing the lighting of a lamp on the Thirupparankundram hill in the state.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi issued a notice to original petitioners Rama Ravikumar and others but refused to stay the high court order.
The top court tagged Tamil Nadu's plea with the pending matter and adjourned it.
Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay-led state government has challenged the January 6 order of the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court that upheld the single judge's order of December 1, 2025, which had ordered that the ceremonial lamp be lit on the festival day.
On January 6, the high court, while upholding the single-judge's order, said the apprehension about law and order due to this religious practice is nothing but an "imaginary ghost" created by them for the sake of their convenience.
It had made clear that the spot on which the stone pillar (Deepathoon) is located belongs to the Sri Subramania Swamy Temple and that the Waqf Board, as of date, has no locus in this matter.
"It is ridiculous and hard to believe the fear of the mighty State that by allowing representatives of the Devasthanam 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," the high court had stated.
"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 it said.
The case arose from a writ petition of one Rama Ravikumar and others seeking directions to light the sacred Deepam at the ancient stone pillar on Thirupparankundram hill during the annual Karthigai Deepam festival in November-December.
On December 1, 2025, the high court single-judge allowed the petition and ordered that the ceremonial lamp be lit on the festival day.
However, the then DMK government in the state, joined by the temple management and the Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah at Thirupparankundram, filed appeals against the single-judge’s order.
The state government had raised concerns over public order, claiming that lighting the lamp at the hilltop, which lies close to the dargah, could foment communal tensions.
In its order, the high court bench also said, "The Waqf Board, as on date, has no locus in this matter. For the first time in the course of the argument in the intra-court appeals, on behalf of the Waqf, a mischievous submission was made that the lamp pillar belongs to the dargah.
"This plea, we would say, had deterred and added yet another reason for the other side to be sceptical about the offer made by the Waqf Board for Court monitoring mediation."
The state, through the district administration, should have taken this as an opportunity to bridge the difference between these two communities, it had said, and added that they could have narrowed down the gap by peaceful and meaningful negotiation.
