The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman orally remarked that the division bench had already upheld the order of the single judge for lighting a lamp at the deepathoon (stone pillar) in the hill. Remarking that the order does not affect anyone, the court asked the State what the difficulty was in implementing the order, instead of keeping the case pending before the High Court.

The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman orally remarked that the division bench had already upheld the order of the single judge for lighting a lamp at the deepathoon (stone pillar) in the hill.

Remarking that the order does not affect anyone, the court asked the State what the difficulty was in implementing the order, instead of keeping the case pending before the High Court.

“ Nobody is affected here. Division bench has asked authorities to do something. What's difficult in that? Why do you want to keep this matter alive?
You can sit together and give a quietus to this. There's a division bench order. We have to see the interest of people there. They reside there. They know ground reality. Ask both sides to sit together, mediate and find a solution. Why don't you be responsible counsels on both sides and see,” the court orally remarked.
The court made the oral remarks on being informed that the State has filed a Special Leave Petition against the order of the division bench, which had upheld the order of the single judge to light lamp at the hill.

The petitioner devotee also informed the court that they have filed a separate special leave petition against a particular portion of the division bench's order, which asked the temple authorities to take steps to light the lamp. Stating that the same would affect the devotees' rights, they had moved the Supreme Court.

Taking note of the pending appeals before the Supreme Court, the bench adjourned the hearing. It also extended the interim stay granted on various orders of the single judge in the contempt proceedings.

Background

It may be noted that on December 1, 2025, the Court ordered the management of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light the lamp at 6 pm on December 3rd. A contempt petition was then moved by the Petitioner on December 03, alleging that no arrangements had been made to comply with the order. The judge then permitted the petitioner-devotee, along with 10 more persons, to light the lamp themselves. It also asked the CISF to give protection to the Petitioners. However, considering the law and order situation prevailing in the area, the District Collector issued a prohibitory order under Section 144 CrPC.

While hearing the contempt plea, on December 4, the court quashed the prohibitory order, noting that it was promulgated only to circumvent the implementation of the court order. When the matter was again taken up on December 9, the Court directed the state's Chief Secretary and Additional Director General of Police (L&O) to appear before it. The court also impleaded the Union Home Secretary and issued a statutory notice to Deputy Commissioner of Police Inigo Divyan.

Following this, affidavits were filed by the officials explaining that they had the highest regard for the court order, and the prohibitory orders were only issued to maintain law and order. The court then suggested that the order can be respected by permitting 5 persons, named by the court, to go to the lower peak of the hillock where the deepathoon lies so that symbolic prayers can be offered for 15 minutes.

Meanwhile, on January 6, 2026, a division bench of the High Court had upheld the single judge's order for lighting the lamp. The bench said that "apprehension of law and order was an imaginary ghost created by state authorities for their convenience to put one community against the other under suspicion." The bench said that the district administration should have taken the issue as an opportunity to bridge the gap between the communities through mediation.

Case Title: KJ Praveenkumar IAS v Rama Ravikumar and Others

Case No: LPA (MD) 9 of 2025