Thiruparankundram Photo | Express
Tamil Nadu

TN govt should challenge Thiruparankundram orders in SC, says VCK

Selvan welcomed Law Minister CTR Nirmal Kumar’s assurance on the hill shrine status quo, saying it eases tensions amid alleged provocations.

Express News Service

CHENNAI: VCK general secretary Sinthanai Selvan on Monday demanded the state government to challenge two court orders linked to the Thiruparankundram controversy in the Supreme Court, warning that failure to do so could compel the government to implement rulings that contradict its stated position on maintaining the status quo.

Welcoming Law Minister CTR Nirmal Kumar’s statement that the situation at the hill shrine would remain as it was two years ago, Selvan, in a post on X, said assurance brought relief amid targeted provocations by “Sangh Parivar fundamentalist forces”. However, he pointed out that two key judgments related to the dispute remain unchallenged by the government.

The first pertains to a writ appeal in which a division bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, on January 6, 2026, upheld with minor modifications an earlier order of Justice GR Swaminathan directing that a lamp be lit on the disputed pillar at the hill shrine.

The second is a writ petition in which the Madurai Bench, on October 10, 2025, upheld a ban on animal sacrifice at the Sikandar Dargah, a practice traditionally observed for generations. “If the state government does not formally appeal both these judgments in the Supreme Court, it will face mounting legal pressure to enforce them, which would directly contradict the minister’s own assurance,” Selvan said.

With former Speaker at helm, INDIA bloc to ‘impeach’ Gyanesh Kumar today

Arunachal CM calls India-China border face-offs ‘transgression, not intrusion’

Fresh Bay of Bengal system raises cyclone watch as Arnab weakens inland

India ready to share its ‘battle-tested' anti-terror expertise to ASEAN partners: Minister Rajanth Singh

Banks must compensate digital fraud victims for loss if due-diligence failure established: SC