The Madras High Court has significantly escalated its intervention in the Thiruparankundram Hill dispute, directly questioning the Executive Officer (EO) of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple regarding the failure to file a criminal trespass complaint against the Dargah management. This inquiry took place during ongoing contempt proceedings against state officials for their alleged non-compliance with earlier court orders concerning the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp at the 'Deepathoon' (stone pillar) on the hill. The court's Division Bench had previously unequivocally declared the Deepathoon area as belonging to the temple. Despite this clear ruling, Dargah authorities reportedly hoisted a Pallivasal (mosque) flag on a tree within this designated temple property during their Santhanakoodu festival, crucially, without obtaining any prior permission from the temple administration. The Executive Officer of the temple conceded that this unauthorized act constituted "rank criminal trespass" and provided an undertaking to the court that a police complaint would be lodged immediately. This specific development is intertwined with a broader and long-standing controversy over the traditional lighting of the Karthigai Deepam. A single-judge bench had initially granted permission for the ritual at the Deepathoon, a decision that was subsequently upheld by a Division Bench. The High Court vehemently rejected the Tamil Nadu government's appeals and its stated apprehensions of potential communal unrest, labeling them as "imaginary ghosts" or "speculative" excuses designed to obstruct judicial directives. Furthermore, the court had previously summoned high-ranking officials, including the Madurai Collector and Deputy Commissioner of Police, to explain their alleged disregard of court orders, with these officials reportedly claiming to have acted independently. The Thiruparankundram hill has a complex history of legal battles dating back to a 1923 trial court ruling that delineated properties belonging to both the temple and the Muslim community. More recent disputes have also involved controversies such as a ban on animal sacrifice on the archaeologically protected hill. The court has consistently emphasized the imperative of upholding judicial orders and ensuring harmonious coexistence wherein both communities can observe their festivals without undue interference.