Supreme Court Rejects Hindu Dharma Parishad's Plea To Light Lamp Atop Thiruparankundram Hill, Reduces Cost Imposed By HC
The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with the Madras High Court's order dismissing a petition filed by the Hindu Dharma Parishad seeking to light a lamp atop the Thiruparankundram Hills.
On April 9, the High Court bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman had imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000, criticised the filing of such pleas for political gains and dismissed the plea. Challenging this order, the association appraoched the Supreme Court.
The vacation bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar refused to interfere with the High Court's order. But considering the exemplary cost imposed, the bench deemed it fit to reduce the cost to Rs. 5000.
"While we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that imposition of costs quantified at Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) is on the excessive side and can be reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in the facts and circumstances of the case. Ordered accordingly."
It may be recalled that on December 1, 2025, Justice Swaminathan of the High Court had ordered the management of the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp at 6 pm on December 3rd at a stone pillar atop the Thirupparankundram hill near a dargah. Later, the bench reprimanded the State Government for obstructing the implementation of the order.
As the Tamil Nadu Government failed to implement the orders, a contempt petition was filed for non-compliance, in which Justice Swaminathan, on December 3, allowed devotees to go to the hill and light the deepam themselves with CISF protection. The bench also quashed the prohibitory order under Section 144 CrPC and directed the state's Chief Secretary and Additional Director General of Police (L&O) to appear before the High Court.
The Tamil Nadu Government filed a letter patent appeal against the contempt order. However, it was dismissed by the division bench of the High Court.
The single judge continued to hear the contempt petitions against the non-compliance with his order to light the lamp at the hill. In one of the hearings, the judge had even suggested that five persons, to be named by the court, may be allowed to go to the hill and light a ceremonial lamp. The division bench, however, stayed the contempt proceedings before the single judge recently.
The Hindu Dharma Parishad, represented by its Managing Trustee KK Ramesh, submitted that as per the Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2010, whoever destroys, removes, defaces, alters, endangers or misuses this monument shall be liable to the punishment prescribed. They argued that some Muslim organisations were working with foreign powers to create riots between Hindu and Muslims. He argued that these organisations were killing sheep and other animals, violating the sanctity of the hill.
They thus sought directions from the Union Government and the Archaeological Survey of India to instruct the State to take action against officers who prevented Hindus from lighting the lamp but permitted other religions to go to the hill.
Case Details: HINDU DHARMA PARISHAD v THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17085/2026
Appearances: For Petitioner(s) Mr. C. R. Jaya Sukin, Adv. Ms. Yashika Anand, Adv. Mr. Secrat Nissar Bhat, Adv. Mr. Roshan Chapagain, Adv. Mr. M. Srinivasan, Adv. Ms. Laveena Tak, Adv. Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Misha Rohatgi Mohta, AOR Mr. Amulya Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. B. Karunakaran, Adv.