The attack on Justice G R Swaminathan over the Thiruparankundram Karthigai Deepam issue is not just a dispute about a lamp; it is a coordinated political assault on Hindu rights, temple traditions, and judicial independence, led by the DMK government in Tamil Nadu and backed by INDI alliance MPs seeking his impeachment. For Hindus across Bharat, this episode is a clear warning about the dangers of empowering parties that display open contempt for Sanatana Dharma and are willing to punish any judge who dares to protect Hindu practices and enforce the law.

Thiruparankundram: A centuries-old Murugan tradition under siege

Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai is one of the six sacred abodes of Lord Murugan, where the traditional Karthigai Deepam is lit at the ancient Deepathoon stone pillar on the hilltop, a ritual that predates modern political parties and even many built structures on the hill. Devotees approached the Madras High Court only because the DMK-controlled Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department and district administration refused permission to light the lamp at the traditional spot, citing objections from a nearby dargah and vague concerns over “communal harmony.” Justice G R Swaminathan, after examining the historical practice and evidence, ordered that the Deepam must be lit at Deepathoon, treating it as a straightforward matter of protecting an established Hindu religious practice.

How the DMK defied court orders and obstructed Hindu devotees

Instead of treating the High Court’s order as binding, the state administration engaged in a pattern of delay, obstruction, and outright defiance. Officials raised repeated procedural objections, cited law-and-order fears, and physically barricaded the path to the hill, effectively preventing devotees from implementing the court’s directions despite clear timelines fixed by the judge. When contempt petitions were filed and the court reiterated that the lamp must be lit by 6 p.m., the administration still did not comply, forcing the judge to warn that contempt proceedings would begin minutes after the deadline. At one point, the court had to involve Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel to ensure that Hindu devotees could simply go up and light a ceremonial lamp, a dramatic illustration of how far the DMK government was willing to go to block a Hindu ritual rather than honour a judicial order. Even then, state police reportedly stopped CISF and devotees at the foot of the hill, leading to scuffles, injuries and a near breakdown of rule of law at a sacred Hindu site.

INDI bloc’s impeachment move: weaponizing the Constitution against a Hindu-protective judge

What began as bureaucratic sabotage in Tamil Nadu escalated into a national constitutional crisis when MPs of the INDI alliance, including DMK leaders, submitted an impeachment notice in Parliament seeking the removal of Justice G R Swaminathan. Over 120 opposition MPs reportedly signed the notice, targeting a judge whose “crime” was to uphold a centuries-old Hindu tradition, enforce court orders, and call out state defiance. Impeachment under the Constitution is meant for rare cases of proven, grave misconduct, not as a political weapon against judges whose rulings are inconvenient for ruling or opposition parties. By turning impeachment into an instrument of ideological retaliation, INDI bloc parties are signaling to the entire judiciary that any judge who protects Hindu rights or confronts a hostile state machinery can be publicly threatened and hounded.

A long pattern of political intimidation of the judiciary

The impeachment move against Justice Swaminathan fits into a long and well-documented pattern where parties now sheltering under the INDI umbrella have tried to bend or punish the judiciary whenever it resisted their agenda. Historical examples include the supersession of senior judges in the 1970s to install a more pliant Chief Justice after landmark constitutional rulings, mass transfers of High Court judges during the Emergency, and repeated attempts in recent years to move impeachment motions against judges in politically sensitive matters solely to exert pressure. More recently, opposition parties attempted impeachment motions against then Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Allahabad HC judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, and there have been instances of political activists and lawyers physically obstructing courtrooms and vilifying judges whose orders did not suit their narrative. The current campaign against Justice Swaminathan therefore represents a continuation of this history, now sharpened against a judge perceived as willing to stand up for Hindu rituals and constitutional principles even when an anti-Hindu state government is in the dock.

DMK’s ideological Hinduphobia reflected in governance

The DMK’s handling of Thiruparankundram cannot be separated from its ideological hostility to Sanatana Dharma that its top leaders have openly articulated. Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin publicly compared Sanatana Dharma to diseases like dengue and malaria and called for its eradication, while senior DMK leader A Raja went further by likening it to ailments such as HIV and leprosy, without facing any serious internal censure. DMK-backed public figures, including prominent actors and MPs, have repeatedly described Sanatana Dharma as something to be broken or removed, and the party has patronized outspoken anti-Hindu evangelists while signaling special deference towards Abrahamic faiths. Administratively, the Tamil Nadu government has tried to curb Hindu expressions—for example, by attempting to stop public celebrations or broadcasts related to major Hindu religious events and by opposing Vedic or traditional rituals under the guise of “secularism” and “communal harmony.” Against this backdrop, the stonewalling of Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram and the refusal to implement a High Court order favorable to Hindu devotees are fully consistent with an entrenched policy mindset that treats Hindu rituals as a problem to be curtailed, not a heritage to be protected.

The larger danger: from one hill in Madurai to courts across Bharat

The Thiruparankundram confrontation illustrates three converging dangers: the use of state power to stifle Hindu religious practice, the deliberate undermining of court authority, and the collective attempt by INDI alliance parties to discipline the judiciary when judges protect Hindu rights. If impeachment threats become a routine response whenever a judge upholds Hindu traditions against hostile state or municipal administrations, future benches will be under constant pressure to avoid rulings that might invite political retaliation. This erodes judicial independence, weakens faith in courts among ordinary devotees, and effectively rewards state governments that defy court orders in the name of one-sided “secularism” while selectively accommodating minority demands even at explicitly Hindu sacred sites. For Hindus, it signals that without vigilant civic pressure and electoral accountability, even historic temple customs backed by judicial orders can be blocked by governments that are ideologically opposed to Sanatana Dharma.

A message to Hindu voters across Bharat

This entire episode makes one political reality stark: parties that consistently mock Hindu beliefs, obstruct Hindu rituals, and attack judges who protect Hindu rights are fundamentally unsafe custodians of Sanatana Dharma’s civilizational legacy. When such parties unite under formations like the INDI alliance and go as far as trying to impeach a High Court judge for enforcing a centuries-old Hindu ritual and upholding court authority, they show not just Hinduphobia but also contempt for constitutional checks and balances. Every Hindu voter, whether in Tamil Nadu or elsewhere in Bharat, needs to remember that the ballot is the most effective shield against Hindudrohi politics: empowering such forces means enabling more Thiruparankundram-type assaults on temples, festivals, priests, and devotees. Protecting dharma today is not only about individual puja or personal faith; it is about refusing to hand political power to those who systematically deride Hindu dharma, block its rituals, and intimidate the judiciary whenever it stands with Hindu rights.