A Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by senior Tamil Nadu officer, K J PraveenKumar challenging the Madras High Court’s direction mandating lamp-lighting at Thiruparankundram hill was mentioned before the Supreme Court on Friday for urgent listing.
The matter was mentioned before the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
During the brief mentioning, the counsel opposing the State argued that Tamil Nadu was “only staging a listing drama” to later tell the High Court that the matter had been brought before the Supreme Court.
Counsel for the State refuted the allegation, stating that he had “only sought a listing” and did not understand the objection raised by the opposing side.
The State reiterated that it was merely requesting an urgent hearing of its challenge.
CJI Surya Kant remarked that the Court would “see” and take an appropriate decision on whether to list the matter urgently. He further said, "No mentioning, let it be numbered and listed".
Notably, on December 4, 2025, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had
reaffirmed its earlier direction that the annual Karthigai Deepam be lit atop Thiruparankundram Hill, specifically at the ancient stone pillar called Deepathoon, dismissing state objections and emphasising enforcement of judicial orders even amid concerns about communal-sensitivity.
The controversy has long revolved around a customary shift. For more than a century, the lamp was traditionally lit at a “Deepa Mandapam” near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple on the hill which is a lower, widely accepted spot. But this year, petitioners sought the ancient Deepathoon on the hill as the site for lighting, arguing that ritual tradition and temple ownership supported their claim.
In its 49-page order, the Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan held that Deepathoon lies outside the area that has historically belonged to the neighbouring Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah and over which the Muslim community claims rights. Justice Swaminathan found that the portion of the hill containing Deepathoon falls under the aegis of the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, thereby rejecting assertions that the lamp lighting would infringe upon the dargah’s rights.
Rejecting arguments that civil demarcation suits or prior court judgments precluded this, court reminded stakeholders that ancient decrees, including a 1923 judgment upheld by the Privy Council, recognised temple ownership over the “unoccupied” portions of the hill excluding the dargah precincts. Since Deepathoon is not part of the dargah’s demarcated area, court ruled, there is no need for fresh civil litigation.
Critically, the High Court had stressed that lighting a lamp, a symbolic religious act, “cannot offend anyone’s sensibilities” when carried out with security and without encroaching on protected areas. Justice Swaminathan had directed temple authorities to light the Deepam at Deepathoon “from this year onwards,” and ordered the state police to afford all necessary protection to ensure compliance.
Despite the clear order, the ritual event on the evening of December 3 saw defiance by the temple administration and police. Instead of lighting the lamp at Deepathoon, the authorities proceeded with the old practice at the Uchi Pillaiyar temple. The temple’s Executive Officer, citing concerns over communal harmony and public order, reportedly ignored the court’s directive.
Case Title: K J PraveenKumar v. Raja RaviKumar
Mentioning Date: December 5, 2025
Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi