The Lok Sabha witnessed a tense and heated confrontation on Friday as Members of Parliament clashed over the controversy surrounding the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the historic Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple in Madurai, Tamil Nadu. The disagreement quickly escalated into a political and procedural debate, highlighting the sensitive intersection of religious rituals, judicial directives, and party politics.

The uproar began when DMK MP TR Baalu made a contentious remark criticising a Madras High Court judge who had allowed devotees to light the traditional lamp atop the Deepathoon, an ancient stone pillar situated near the Sikkandar Badushah Dargah in Madurai. The Tamil Nadu government, led by the DMK, had opposed this court order, citing potential risks to communal harmony and the need to maintain public order. Baalu’s remarks, which were widely seen as targeting the judiciary, drew sharp reactions from members across the House.

Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju strongly objected to Baalu’s statement, emphasizing that it “amounts to casting aspersions on the judiciary.” He reminded the members of the need to maintain decorum in parliamentary debate, underscoring the long-standing principle of avoiding disparaging remarks against judges. Addressing Baalu directly, Rijiju warned that such language could invite unnecessary trouble not only for him but for his party as well. He said, “In the history of our parliamentary democracy, we have upheld the discipline of avoiding unparliamentary language. We are not opposed to what he wants to express, but he cannot use such language in Parliament.”

During Zero Hour, several members from the Treasury Benches intervened to counter the Opposition’s claims. Krishna Prasad Tenneti, presiding over the session, later announced that Baalu’s remark would be expunged from the official record. “The matter is sub judice. You referred to an honourable judge with an inappropriate label. This is withdrawn and deleted. We cannot refer to any judge in such terms,” Tenneti stated, signaling the House’s commitment to protecting judicial dignity while maintaining parliamentary decorum. Despite this, Baalu stood by his statement, asserting that the judge in question “himself acknowledged an association with the organization,” reflecting his insistence on raising concerns about perceived biases in judicial decisions.

The controversy centers around the annual Karthigai Deepam ritual, where a lamp is traditionally lit atop the Deepathoon. This ritual holds immense religious significance for devotees in Madurai, representing spiritual illumination and devotion. On December 1, 2025, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court permitted devotees to conduct the lighting ceremony. However, the Tamil Nadu government contested the order, citing concerns over maintaining public order and preventing potential communal tensions. When state authorities and temple management did not facilitate the court-mandated ritual on December 3, clashes erupted between Hindu organizations and police personnel, intensifying the situation and drawing national attention.

Baalu argued that the unrest was being deliberately inflamed by political actors. “A particular group belonging to a particular political party is creating communal clashes. The Government of India should address the issue,” he stated, framing the incident as a matter of governance and communal justice rather than purely a ritual dispute. On the other side, Union Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs L Murugan accused the DMK-led state government of religious discrimination, claiming that it was targeting a specific community and obstructing worshippers. Murugan further stated, “The Tamil Nadu government is targeting a particular community and obstructing worshippers. They are destroying law and order in that area. The DMK government functions only for vote-bank politics.”

The debate in the Lok Sabha highlighted the delicate balance between judicial intervention, religious freedom, and public order. While the court had issued a directive to allow the ritual, the state government faced the challenge of implementing the order without triggering communal unrest. The political ramifications of this dispute became immediately apparent as both DMK and BJP used the issue to advance their respective narratives, with DMK framing the matter as a political attack and BJP criticizing the state for allegedly obstructing worshippers and undermining law and order.

The incident also underscores the growing politicization of religious rituals in India, particularly in regions where temple practices intersect with complex local politics. Rituals such as the Karthigai Deepam are deeply rooted in tradition and often carry symbolic significance that extends beyond religious practice into social and political spheres. In this case, the dispute over a single ritual became a flashpoint for larger questions about judicial authority, government responsibility, and the role of political parties in influencing communal harmony.

The decision to expunge Baalu’s remarks from the official parliamentary record reflects the House’s effort to uphold institutional integrity, particularly in matters involving the judiciary. Sub judice matters—cases currently under judicial consideration—require careful handling to avoid prejudicing court proceedings or undermining public confidence in the judicial system. By removing the remarks, the Speaker reinforced the principle that parliamentarians must exercise restraint when discussing ongoing legal matters, ensuring that political debates do not compromise the impartiality of the courts.

At the local level, the Karthigai Deepam incident has prompted discussions on how religious events, public safety, and governance intersect. The Madurai temple administration, state authorities, and law enforcement agencies have been tasked with balancing the need for ritual observance with the maintenance of public order. Meanwhile, political parties continue to frame the narrative in ways that appeal to their respective constituencies, with national implications given the media attention the dispute has attracted.

In conclusion, the Lok Sabha face-off over the Karthigai Deepam ritual in Madurai serves as a microcosm of the complex interplay between religion, law, and politics in India. It illustrates how traditional practices can become points of contention when intersecting with judicial directives, state governance, and political agendas. The expunging of Baalu’s remarks underscores the importance of parliamentary decorum, respect for the judiciary, and adherence to procedural norms, even amidst highly charged political debates. As the ritual continues to hold deep significance for devotees, the challenge remains for all stakeholders—courts, government, political parties, and civil society—to ensure that faith, law, and public order coexist without conflict.