The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging a single judge’s order permitting the lighting of the “Karthigai Deepam” oil lamp at the stone pillar (Deepa Thoon) on Thirupparankundram hill, observing that the petition was driven by an ulterior motive to sidestep contempt proceedings.
A division bench of Justices G Jayachandran and K K Ramakrishnan declined to interfere with the order passed by Justice G R Swaminathan, who had allowed the lamp to be lit atop the hill where the Lord Subramaniya Swamy temple is located.
The bench said the earlier order dated December 1, 2025 placed the responsibility of lighting the lamp on the Thirupparankundram Arulmighu Subramania Swamy temple administration. When the court later found that the temple management had not fulfilled that duty, the responsibility was shifted to the writ petitioners.
“This is neither altering the order nor modifying the order, but only changing the person who was supposed to discharge the responsibility of lighting the lamp. Therefore, we find this appeal filed with an ulterior motive to preempt contempt action is liable to be dismissed,” the court said.
The appeal was filed by the state government, the Madurai district collector and the Commissioner of Police, Madurai city, challenging the single judge’s direction passed in a contempt petition that also permitted the assistance of central police forces to facilitate the lighting of the lamp.
Additional Advocate General J Ravindran argued that allowing CISF protection was untenable and that contempt action could not be triggered when appeal avenues were still open. He submitted that the lamp has traditionally been lit for over a century only at the Thirupparankundram Uchi Pillaiyar Mandapam and not at the stone pillar.
He further contended that the temple, too, was an aggrieved party and should have been given the opportunity to appeal the original order. Entertaining the contempt petition and directing compliance without allowing the respondents to test the original directions “smogs with malafide,” the state argued.
The government maintained that the single judge had exceeded contempt jurisdiction, acting “as an executing judge,” which it said was impermissible under Articles 129 and 215.
On the imposition of prohibitory orders by authorities, the division bench noted:
“When there is specific order by the High Court to permit the petitioner and others, ten in numbers, to light the Deepam at the Deepa Thoon… how this prohibitory order can be put against them.”
On involving Central forces, the bench supported the single judge’s directive:
“The learned single judge having found that the State machinery willfully decided not to implement the direction… called upon the assistance of CISF. The situation has arisen in which the state police is unable to carry the Constitution mandate. There is no illegality in taking the assistance of central force.”
The bench clarified it is for the single judge to determine whether any noncompliance was willful—“We cannot jump into conclusion.”
Justice Swaminathan, in a separate directive, noted that December 4 was “Sarvalaya Deepam Day,” allowing the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp on that date as well, stating that the order should be read with his earlier directions, except for the changed date and CISF deployment.
In the December 1 order, the judge had held that lighting the lamp at the Deepathoon — a stone pillar intended for the ceremonial lamp — would not impact the nearby Dargah structure, which lies at a distance of over 50 metres.
The division bench’s decision brings a decisive judicial backing to the single judge’s intervention, clearing the way for the ceremonial lighting at the designated stone pillar on Thirupparankundram hill.
