Supreme Court questions TN for delay in filing appeal against Thiruparankundram deepathoon verdict

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Tamil Nadu government over the delay in pursuing its appeal against a Madras High Court judgment directing the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the Deepa Thoon on Thiruparankundram Hill in Madurai [HR & CE v Rama Ravikumar].

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi asked the State why it had not pursued the matter promptly after the High Court passed its judgment in January 2026.

“If this situation had cropped up in January 2026, when this order came, what were you doing all this time?”

The State attributed the delay to the need to translate voluminous documents. The Bench nevertheless sought responses to the appeal and directed the respondents to file their replies within six weeks. The State was permitted to file a rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

The Court, however, did not stay the High Court judgment. When the State raised concerns over contempt proceedings pending before the High Court, the Supreme Court asked it to mention the matter before the concerned Division Bench.

The dispute arose after devotee Rama Ravikumar submitted a representation in October 2025 seeking permission to light the Deepam at the Deepa Thoon. The temple’s executive officer replied that the festival would be conducted in accordance with the existing practice near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple.

Ravikumar and other devotees then approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

On December 1, 2025, Justice GR Swaminathan directed the Devasthanam to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepa Thoon in addition to the usual places. The judge held that lighting the lamp at the pillar would honour Tamil tradition and periodically assert the temple’s title over its property.

A Division Bench of Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan substantially upheld the direction on January 6. It ordered the Devasthanam to send a limited team to light the lamp at the Deepa Thoon. The number of team members was to be decided in consultation with the Archaeological Survey of India and the police. Members of the public were not to accompany the team.

The HR&CE Department has challenged the High Court’s January 6 judgment directing the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple Devasthanam to light the Karthigai Deepam at the stone pillar.

As per the appeal, the High Court effectively invented a new temple ritual that was unsupported by any established custom, temple record, inscription, Agama text, archival material or previous decree.

According to the State, the Karthigai Deepam has been lit for over 150 years at the Deepa Mandapam near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple, located partway up the hill, and not at the Deepa Thoon.

As per the petition, a devotee’s right to worship under Article 25 of the Constitution does not include a right to impose changes on the rituals followed by a public temple.

Further, courts cannot interfere with the autonomy of religious institutions in matters concerning rituals, festivals and ceremonial practices, it was submitted.

At the Supreme Court, the counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the appeal and alleged that the State had filed the special leave petition but failed to prosecute it for nearly seven months. It was further alleged that the appeal was now being pressed with urgency for “optics” following a change in dispensation.

“The judgment is of December, January. They simply filed an SLP for the sake of it. They did not prosecute it for seven months. And now the State is with so much vehemence trying to push the matter. This is all just optics for what they want.”

The respondents also claimed that the State had relied on the pendency of its Supreme Court appeal to stall contempt proceedings before the High Court.

The State argued that there was no established custom or festival practice of lighting the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepa Thoon and that individual devotees had no legal right to demand the creation of such a ritual. It warned that allowing courts to alter religious practices at the request of individual devotees would set a dangerous precedent with consequences for temples across the country.

The State also maintained that the High Court’s direction was unsupported by temple records, Agama prescriptions or any prior decree, and said the delay in pursuing its appeal was caused by the need to translate voluminous records.