Madurai District Collector KJ Praveen Kumar, Madurai City Police Commissioner J Loganathan and other senior officials, on Monday, February 2, tendered unconditional apologies before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in connection with contempt proceedings over the non-implementation of orders to light Karthigai Deepam at the “Deepathoon”, a stone pillar next to the Muslim dargah atop the Thirupparankundram hills.
The Collector, in his affidavit, said he had passed prohibitory orders on December 3, 2025, taking into account the ground situation in Thirupparankundram to maintain law and order. Similar affidavits were filed by Executive Officer of Subramaniya Swamy Temple Yagna Narayanan and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Madurai South) AG Inigo Divyan, all tendering unconditional apologies.
Appearing for the officials, senior counsel V Giri submitted that the Collector had invoked Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, after receiving inputs about crowding by Hindu outfits and potential law and order issues. “There was no intention to disobey the court orders,” he told the court, adding that the steps were taken purely to keep the situation under control.
Justice GR Swaminathan, who is hearing the contempt petitions, questioned how the prohibitory orders came to be issued in a manner that “frustrated” the court’s earlier directions. The judge granted time to the Collector to file an additional affidavit explaining his conduct and posted the matter to March 2. The contempt proceedings against the Collector were split from those involving the other officers, whose personal appearances were dispensed with.
The court also took note of an affidavit filed by Chief Secretary N Muruganandam, with the Collector and Deputy Commissioner of Police stating that they had acted on their own and not under any dictation. However, Justice Swaminathan observed that though the prohibitory order was later quashed, the High Court’s directions were still not implemented.
The single judge had on December 1 directed the management of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light the lamp at the controversial site on December 3. After allegations of non-compliance, the court permitted a petitioner-devotee and 10 others to light the lamp themselves and directed CISF protection. When devotees attempted to proceed, they were restrained following the Collector’s prohibitory order, which was subsequently set aside.
In earlier hearings, the court remarked that there were three facets of contempt involved: disobedience of the initial order, issuance of the prohibitory order under Section 144 CrPC, and resistance to implementation even after that order was quashed. Justice Swaminathan had also criticised the officials for not showing remorse.
On Monday, while considering the fresh affidavits, the judge orally referred to a magazine report quoting a police officer as saying he was “ready to face the consequence.” Responding to this, State counsel said no officer would intentionally make such a statement and that any such remark, if made, could have been out of context.
The court also questioned the State on whether it intended to approach the Supreme Court against the High Court’s directions on lighting the Deepam. Justice Swaminathan said, “If police and (District administration) say they intend to go to Supreme Court, I will adjourn the proceedings by a month. No issue. Please make a statement. I won’t take one step further.”
When the Additional Advocate General said the State was still exploring legal remedies, the judge added that he may close the contempt proceedings if the government agrees to comply with the orders. He further observed that it would be “atrocious” if the temple administration itself were to challenge the verdict. “Going on appeal (by temple), according to me, would be atrocious. They are there to uphold the rights (of temple devotees), not subvert them,” Justice Swaminathan said.
Senior advocate V Giri reiterated that the authorities had acted only to prevent communal clashes as large crowds gathered near the hillock and had no malicious intent to flout court orders. Persuaded to an extent by these submissions, Justice Swaminathan indicated he may take a lenient view with respect to the other officers, while granting the Collector time to place an additional affidavit on record.
The matter will be taken up again on March 2.