Permit 5 people named by court for symbolic prayers atop Tirupparankundram hill: HC to govt
The Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench suggested allowing five court-named persons to offer 15-minute symbolic prayers near the Deepathoon atop Tirupparankundram hill, amid a contempt plea over Karthigai Deepam lighting and political controversy surrounding prohibitory orders
Madurai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has suggested to the administration to permit five persons named by the court to offer symbolic prayers for 15 minutes near the stone pillar atop the Tirupparankundram hill.
Hearing a contempt petition filed for non-compliance of an earlier direction on lighting Karthigai Deepam atop the Deepathoon, the court said the symbolic prayers (not lighting the lamp) could be allowed if the government wanted to show respect to the earlier orders of the court.
Also, the Bench comprising Justice G R Swaminathan remarked that state Minerals and Mines Minister S Regupathy had “given a mischievous political spin” to the Tirupparankundram issue when he stated that the government would not permit the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (stone pillar).
Madurai collector K J Praveen Kumar had filed an additional affidavit stating that he promulgated the prohibition orders on December 1, 2025, in order to prevent law and order situation and not to hinder temple authorities from enforcing the high court’s orders to light the lamp at the stone pillar.
Responding, Justice Swaminathan said on March 2, “I suggest that respect to the order passed by this court can be shown by permitting a group of five persons to be named by this court to go to the lower peak of the hillock where the Deepathoon lies so that the symbolic prayers can be offered.” “I further indicate that this entire exercise can be confined to 15 minutes. This is only a suggestion and not a direction,” he added.
The court observed that the police “took shelter” behind the collector’s prohibitory order and made it clear that they were only enforcing the collector’s order.
The judge adjourned further hearing on the case to March 4.
Also, the judge closed a sub-application seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against Regupathy for his reported statements on the issue and concluded that “Regupathy has given a mischievous political spin to the turn of events. Whether the issuance of prohibitory order by the collector is an act of contempt or not is the subject matter of court proceedings. The rule of sub-judice will kick in. Let the minister bear this principle in mind.” Justice Swaminathan made it clear that he would not hesitate to reopen the sub-application if the occasion demanded.
