Madurai: The ongoing controversy surrounding the lighting of the lamp atop Thirupparankundram hill has reached another significant stage in the legal process, with the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday directing the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary and Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) to appear before the court via video conference on December 17. The matter is being heard in connection with a contempt petition filed over alleged non-compliance with earlier court orders concerning the Karthigai Deepam festival.

The court also included the Union Home Secretary as a party to the proceedings, indicating the seriousness of the matter and the involvement of multiple levels of administrative authority. The case stems from a dispute regarding the traditional lighting of a lamp on a stone pillar at the hilltop shrine of Arulmighu Subramanya Swamy Temple in Thirupparankundram, which is a significant ritual during the Karthigai Deepam festival.

Background of the Controversy

The issue came to the court’s attention after Rama Ravikumar filed a contempt plea against various officials, including the Madurai district collector, the Commissioner of Police, and the Executive Officer of the temple. The petitioner alleged that despite clear court directives, the authorities had failed to facilitate the lighting of the lamp during the festival. According to the petitioner, this was an attempt to delay proceedings and avoid compliance with the earlier orders, thereby undermining the authority of the court.

The Madurai High Court, led by Justice G R Swaminathan, has been closely monitoring the matter since December 1, when a single-judge order instructed the temple management to ensure the lamp lighting ceremony was conducted during the Karthigai Deepam festival scheduled for December 3. Despite this directive, the event did not occur, leading the court to intervene further.

Interim Orders and Court Intervention

On December 3, after the lamp lighting did not take place as directed, Justice Swaminathan allowed the petitioner and ten other individuals to light the lamp under the protection of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). This temporary arrangement was made to ensure the ceremonial tradition was upheld without further administrative obstruction.

The court also admitted the contempt plea on December 4 and quashed the prohibitory order that had been enforced by the district collector during the festival. This effectively nullified administrative restrictions that were seen as obstructive to the religious observance. The decision underscored the court’s commitment to ensuring that legal directives are implemented and that citizens’ rights to participate in religious customs are protected.

Current Developments

During the hearing on Tuesday, Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan, representing the Tamil Nadu government, informed the court that the state authorities had filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court challenging the single-judge order regarding the lamp lighting. Despite this, the Madurai High Court proceeded with the contempt proceedings, emphasizing the need for administrative accountability.

Justice Swaminathan directed the Chief Secretary and ADGP to appear via video conference on December 17 to provide explanations regarding the non-compliance and to respond to the contempt allegations. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that the officials’ failure to follow the earlier orders appeared to be a deliberate attempt to delay justice and avoid accountability.

In addition, advocate Karthikeyan N, speaking to the media, stated that a statutory notice has been issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madurai, requiring him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for failing to enforce the court’s orders. This step indicates that the court is seeking accountability at multiple levels of the administrative hierarchy.

Significance of the Case

The Thirupparankundram lamp lighting row has drawn attention not only for its religious and cultural implications but also for its legal and administrative dimensions. The case highlights the challenges of ensuring compliance with court directives when multiple authorities are involved and underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding both legal and cultural rights.

The dispute also reflects broader tensions between traditional religious practices and administrative regulations, particularly in situations where prohibitory orders or other restrictions are perceived to interfere with long-standing rituals. The High Court’s intervention aims to balance these considerations while asserting the primacy of judicial orders.

Looking Ahead

The upcoming hearing on December 17 is expected to bring clarity regarding the administrative accountability of senior officials in Tamil Nadu. The appearance of the Chief Secretary and ADGP via video conference will allow the court to directly question the top levels of the state administration on their role in ensuring compliance with judicial directives.

Observers note that the case could set a precedent for how contempt petitions related to religious customs and festival observances are handled in the state, reinforcing the importance of timely and effective implementation of court orders.

As the matter unfolds, all eyes will remain on the court proceedings to see whether administrative authorities provide satisfactory explanations and comply with the judicial directives, ensuring that legal and religious obligations are respected.