Drama And Setback For Tamil Nadu Government In Temple Lamp Row

The Madras High Court's Madurai bench on Thursday dismissed an appeal by the Tamil Nadu government and Madurai District Collector challenging a contempt order in the Thirupparankundram Subramaniaswamy temple case, which revolves around lighting a festival lamp on one of two ancient pillars built on a hill that is also home to a 14th-century dargah.

On Monday a single-judge bench ordered the lamp lit on the upper pillar in addition to the one built lower down the hill, which had been the traditional spot for the last 100 years.

That order, however, was not executed. And because it was not followed, the judge subsequently allowed the petitioner to climb the hill with 10 others and light the lamp.

In a rare move to enforce its follow-up order, the court also said they were to be protected by central forces, specifically the Central Industrial Security Force. CISF personnel were deployed, the court observed, only because the state government had failed to enforce the earlier order.

Subsequently, the state filed an intra-court appeal against the Madurai bench's order.

Dramatic sequence of events

On December 1, the High Court's Madurai bench ruled the upper stone pillar, also called 'deepathoon', which is near the dargah is also temple property and must be included in the lamp-lighting ritual. The court emphasised the necessity of the temple asserting possession.

On December 2, the temple administration filed an appeal but the court did not list it.

On December 3, the day of the festival, the petitioner filed a contempt plea arguing no arrangements had been made to comply with the court order. The single-judge bench summoned temple officials and the Madurai police chief to appear, via video call, at 5 pm.

The lamp was to be lit at 6 pm and it was argued the petition had been filed prematurely, which prompted the judge to adjourn till five minutes past six. But, by then the lamp had been lit at the traditional site. An irked judge, citing non-compliance, then ordered it lit on the upper pillar also.

More dramatic scenes unfolded as hundreds attempted to march up the hill, breaking barricades and clashing with the police. Some policemen were assaulted. District officials then imposed prohibitory orders, preventing the petitioner and CISF from reaching the pillar.

In court today

The state argued that it (and the dargah, the administration of which also objected to the lamp being lit on the upper pillar) should have had a 30-day window to file an appeal.

A contempt petition should, therefore, not have been taken up 'hurriedly'.

The state also argued deploying CISF amounted to judicial overreach, noting the force is meant to secure court premises and not enforce the law. It also alleged the petitioner had mobilised a people, disturbed public harmony, and triggering imposition of prohibitory orders.

The state further maintained that in contempt proceedings, the court's role is limited to punishment for disobedience and not issuing new operational directions.

It reiterated the lamp had been lit in one place only and shifting the ritual would hurt religious sentiments. The administration also argued temple officials could not join the evening hearing due to the volatile crowd situation.

Separately, the dargah management asked if the responsibility of lighting could legally be shifted from the temple to the petitioner.

The petitioners countered by saying the police refused security despite a court order and that the state government's non-compliance had forced the court to permit them to light the lamp.

Court's observation

The High Court noted communal amity must be built through cooperation rather than preventing one another, reaffirming the principle that legal orders must be followed unless stayed by a higher bench.

Political impact

Politically, the developments mark a significant setback for the ruling DMK, which already faces accusations of an 'anti-Hindu' stance to appease Muslim voters - a charge the party has denied. BJP leader Tamilisai Soundararajan told NDTV, "It's a slap on the face of the Tamil Nadu government".

For the BJP, which has only a negligible presence in Tamil Nadu, the controversy has emerged as a potent issue with which to attack the DMK and expand its political footprint, especially ahead of the 2026 Assembly election. The ruling DMK has yet to respond formally but a party source told NDTV the BJP 'stands exposed once again, like in the Babri Masjid demolition case. Real devotees are with the government and this won't affect us electorally'.

Government sources said allegations of an 'anti-Hindu stance' are baseless. A senior officer said the state "is not against Hindus. We are only protecting the interests of Hindus".