The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court was hearing the contempt petition in the issue of lighting of Karthigai Deepam at deepathoon in the Thirupparankundram hill. File
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) on Tuesday summoned the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary and the Additional Director-General of Police (Law and Order) to appear before the court through video conference at 3 p.m. on December 17. He was hearing the contempt petition filed in the issue of lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the deepathoon (pillar) in the Thirupparankundram hill. He also impleaded the Union Home Secretary as a respondent.
He said, “I notice a definite pattern. I am certain that officials at the district level would not dare so brazenly to defy the orders of this court. Let me remind the officials concerned that their duty is to enforce the law and not go by dictates that are often issued orally. While the order of any administrative superior has to be complied with, this obligation does not extend to illegal orders. I have already ordered notice in the contempt petition. It is beyond dispute that the order of this court has been breached repeatedly.”
The judge said such a breach would acquire a contumacious character only if it was wilful. The officials concerned might have to explain why they behaved in the manner they did. “But since such conduct is not confined to one district, I have to necessarily call upon the highest officers of the State to clarify the position. I would want to know from them if they propose to issue any circular or instructions for the guidance of the district-level officers. I am not here to throw up my hands and helplessly cry, ‘O Father, Forgive Them, for they do not know what they are doing’,” the judge said.
The court noted that at Painkulam village in Killiyur taluk of Kanniyakumari district, there is a hill described in the registered documents as ‘Mayiladum Parai’. A Murugan statue installed on the hill was removed at the direction of the Collector. The court directed that it be reinstalled. Though the administration was aware that only status quo ante was ordered to be restored, it had so far refused to enforce the order of this court. Another instance was Perumal Kovilpatti in Dindigul district, it said.
“Based on the submissions/clarifications to be made by the Chief Secretary and the Additional Director-General of Police, I may seek inputs from the Union Home Secretary,” the judge said. The petitioners wanted the Union Home Secretary impleaded in the case.
The court took cognisance of the report submitted by the Deputy Commandant of the CISF Contingent attached to the High Court that the Madurai City Police Commissioner, accompanied by more than 200 police personnel, had stopped the CISF Contingent from proceeding further. One reason assigned by the Police Commissioner was that the court order did not bear the signature of the judge. It was also argued that in view of the prohibitory order issued by the District Magistrate/ Collector, no person could be allowed to go up the hill.
The judge said that at least on December 3, the police had the excuse of taking shelter behind the prohibitory order passed the same day. But the police had no defence whatsoever for refusing to enforce the court order the next day. The prohibitory order was quashed and the order was dictated in the presence of City Police Commissioner J. Loganathan. That is why, he chose to be absent from the spot and handed over the baton to his deputy, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Madurai South) A.G. Inigo Divyan, the court said. It directed that the statutory notice be served on him. The court also ordered the statutory notice to Collector K.J. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Loganathan, and Yagna Narayanan, Executive Officer of the Subramaniya Swamy temple.
“I first proceeded on the premise that the Supreme Court was seized of the matter. It turns out that the State filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in a defective manner. I, therefore, conclude that as of this moment, the Supreme Court is not seized of the issue. Admittedly, no interim order has been obtained by the appellants. The corollary is that the order passed by this court is still holding good. In these circumstances, pendency of the writ appeals without there being any interim order cannot by itself operate as a stay,” the judge said.
Published – December 09, 2025 10:39 pm IST
