The C Joseph Vijay-led Tamil Nadu Government has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court’s order allowing the lighting of a lamp on the Thiruparankundram Hill near a dargah in the state.
The state government has challenged the January 6 order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court that upheld a single judge’s order of December 1, 2025, allowing the ceremonial lamp to be lit on the festival day.
In its January 6 order, the high court said the apprehension about law and order due to this religious practice was nothing but an “imaginary ghost” created by the state for the sake of convenience.
The spot on which the stone pillar (Deepathoon) was located belonged to the Sri Subramania Swamy Temple and that the Waqf Board, as of date, had no locus standi in this matter, the high court had said.
“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 said.
“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,” it had said.
The HC order had come on a petition filed by Rama Ravikumar and others seeking directions to light the sacred Deepam at the ancient stone pillar on Thiruparankundram 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, 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 claimed that lighting the lamp at the hilltop, close to the dargah, could lead to communal tensions.
However, the high court said, “the Waqf Board, as on date, has no locus (standi) in this matter."
