Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Madurai bench of Madras High Court on Friday, January 9, warned government officials and temple administration of contempt charges if they fail to show cause on why the HC order to light the Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram was not implemented.
A bench of Justice GR Swaminathan, hearing contempt petitions linked to the non-compliance of the court's December 1 order, said the authorities were given sufficient opportunity but had failed to show cause.“Unless proper cause is shown, charges will be framed against the contemnors on February 2,” Justice Swaminathan warned.
The contemnors present before the court included the Madurai District Collector KJ Praveen Kumar, Madurai City Police Commissioner J Loganathan, Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) (Madurai South) AG Inigo Divyan, and Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Yagna Narayanan. Chief Secretary N Muruganandam has also filed an affidavit, which the court has taken on record.
The state informed the court that Letters Patent Appeals had been filed against the contempt proceedings and sought more time, stating that the appeals were yet to be taken up by a Division bench. However, the court expressed displeasure at the conduct of the officials and raised three distinct acts of obstruction.
First, despite the clear December 1 order permitting the lighting of the Deepam, the temple authorities did not obey it. Second, to frustrate this judicial direction, the District Collector subsequently issued a prohibitory order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPc). Third, even after this prohibitory order was quashed by the court, Deputy Commissioner Inigo Divyan continued to obstruct the implementation of the order.
Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPc), now replaced as Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), empowers an executive magistrate to issue orders prohibiting assemblies of four or more people, restricting movement, or banning weapons in urgent situations of public nuisance, danger, or disturbance of peace.
Justice Swaminathan also pointed out that the Division bench on January 6 had upheld the primary order and declared that the Deepathon area on the lower peak of the hill belonged to the temple.
Despite this, in connection with the Sandhanakoodu festival, the dargah authorities tied the Pallivasal flag to a tree in the Deepathoon area.
During the hearing, the temple’s Executive Officer stated that no permission had been sought from the temple before hoisting the flag and added that the act amounted to rank criminal trespass. He informed the court that a complaint would be lodged immediately before the jurisdictional police and assured that necessary steps would be taken to initiate proper criminal proceedings.
The case has been posted for further hearing on February 2.
The Thiruparankundram hill has been at the centre of controversy since January 2025, after animal sacrifice was banned at the Sufi shrine. The December 1 order led to a standoff between the district administration and Hindutva activists after authorities halted the lighting, citing concerns over violence and potential unrest.
