MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has granted two weeks’ time to the trustees of the Thiruparankundram Subramaniya Swamy temple to respond to its suggestion to permit five persons (to be named by the court) to offer prayers at the deepathoon, situated atop the hill, for 15 minutes.
Justice G R Swaminathan had made the suggestion on Monday, while hearing a batch of contempt petitions filed over non-compliance of his order dated December 1, 2025, directing lighting of lamp on the deepathoon during the Karthigai Deepam festival. The judge had also directed the city police commissioner and deputy police commissioner (south), the present executive officer and trustees of the temple to be present before the court.
When the case was heard on Wednesday, senior counsel R Shunmugasundaram, representing the trustees who appeared in person, sought two weeks’ time to deliberate and consult with the HR & CE department before taking a decision as what has been suggested was a new custom.
Meanwhile, senior counsel Vikas Singh, who argued on behalf of the city police commissioner, said the contempt petition was no longer maintainable. Once the matter went before the division bench and the latter passed a separate order, even if the said order confirmed the single judge’s order, the contempt would only lie before the division bench, he contended.
Hearing both sides, the judge orally criticised the trustees for non-implementation of the earlier order and said he would implead the trustees as contemnors and frame charges against them as well as the above police officers who had given intelligence reports to the collector that there was law and order problem in Thiruparankundram on the day of the festival. However, after requests made by senior counsel Shunmugasundaram, NR Ilango and additional advocate general Veera Kathiravan, the judge said he would make a decision on the same after hearing the trustees’ response and adjourned the case to March 18.
Earlier, Kathiravan suggested carrying out the prayers through the temple priests instead of five private individuals, but this was strongly opposed by the petitioners’ counsel.
The judge said the petitioners should be allowed to accompany the priests as it was the petitioners who fought for the cause and not the temple or priests.