Chennai: In a setback for the Tamil Nadu Government, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by the Madurai District Collector and the Commissioner of Police challenging a contempt order related to the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepa Thoon (pillar) atop the famed Tirupparankundram hill.
The Bench, comprising Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, held the officials had approached the court “as a pre-emptive step” to avoid contempt consequences after allegedly failing to carry out a prior judicial order.
The dispute stems from a December 1 order by Justice G R Swaminathan directing the Tirupparankundram Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light the Karthigai Deepam not only at the usual locations but also at the ancient stone lamp pillar known as Deepa Thoon. The order followed a writ petition filed by Rama Ravikumar, a Hindu outfit representative.
On December 3—the day of Karthigai Deepam—Ravikumar approached the court again with an urgent contempt plea, alleging the temple administration had not made any arrangements to comply with the order even by 5 p.m., though the lamp was to be lit at 6 p.m. The Single Judge, after initially holding the matter in abeyance to allow compliance, found that the directive had still not been carried out. He then permitted the petitioner and ten others to proceed to the hilltop to light the lamp, and directed a CISF team to escort them after observing that local police were unwilling to provide security.
The Collector and the Police Commissioner appealed this order, arguing that the contempt petition was premature and based on “anticipated disobedience.” They said the Single Judge had overreached his jurisdiction by allowing private individuals to light the lamp. Besides, calling in CISF personnel amounted to undermining the State police and exceeding judicial authority.
The appellants said an appeal against the original December 1 order had already been filed, and the contempt direction prevented them from exercising their right to challenge it.
They also relied on a prohibitory order issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—the successor to Section 144 CrPC—purportedly issued from 6 p.m. onwards on December 3 to bar access to the hill. But the Division Bench questioned the timing and validity of this order, noting inconsistencies in the records and observing that the order itself exempted religious ceremonies.
Rejecting the officials’ arguments, the Bench held the Single Judge had merely ensured the meaningful implementation of his earlier order. It emphasised that allowing the petitioner to light the lamp did not modify the original direction but only substituted the person responsible after the temple administration failed to act.
“The situation arose only because the State machinery willfully decided not to implement the direction citing pendency of an unnumbered appeal,” the judges observed. They added that when State police refuse protection, the court is not helpless and may draw assistance from available forces, including the CISF.
The Bench concluded that the appeal was “filed with ulterior motive to pre-empt contempt action” and dismissed it. It also closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
