Madras HC threatens officials of contempt charges over Deepathoon curbs
The Madras High Court on Friday asked the Madurai district administration and police to offer a satisfactory explanation for issuing prohibitory orders and obstructing the implementation of its directions permitting the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram hill
The Madras High Court on Friday issued a warning to the Madurai district administration and police, cautioning that contempt charges would be framed if they failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for issuing prohibitory orders and obstructing the implementation of its directions permitting the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram hill.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench observed that the prohibitory order issued by the district collector under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), followed by police obstruction, appeared to have been deliberately aimed at frustrating the court’s December 1 order allowing the ritual at the stone pillar known as the Deepathoon. The judge warned that unless “proper cause is shown,” charges would be framed against the alleged contemnors on February 2, 2026.
“This Court vide order dated 01.12.2025 allowed lighting the Karthigai Deepam atop the Thiruparankundram hill at the Deepathoon. This order was not obeyed. To frustrate the judicial order, a prohibitory order under Section 163 of BNSS, 2023 was passed. Even though this order was quashed, the police obstructed the implementation of this Court’s directions,” recorded Justice Swaminathan, naming the district collector and the deputy commissioner of police.
The court was hearing contempt petitions against the Madurai district collector, the city police commissioner and the executive officer of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple after devotees were prevented from accessing the hill on December 4, despite clear judicial directions issued on December 1 and reiterated in subsequent hearings.
Earlier, on December 17, the court had directed the Tamil Nadu chief secretary to file detailed affidavits explaining the non-compliance and to take a responsible stand. When the matter was taken up on Friday, the additional advocate general informed the court that the affidavits would be filed on the next hearing date, citing the hospitalisation of the law officer representing the collector. Justice Swaminathan took exception to the explanation and noted that administrative difficulties could not justify continued defiance of judicial orders.
In a fresh development during the hearing, Yagna Narayanan, the executive officer of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, told the court that following the division bench’s January 6 ruling affirming that the Deepathoon area belongs to the temple, the management of the nearby dargah was liable for criminal prosecution for trespass.
Narayanan said he would lodge a police complaint and initiate criminal proceedings against dargah officials for allegedly tying a red flag bearing a crescent symbol on a sacred and historically significant tree in the Deepathoon area during the Sandhanakoodu festival, without permission. The court recorded the submission.
The district magistrate and the deputy commissioner of police, for their part, submitted that they had acted independently and not under any external direction or pressure. The court recorded their statements and posted the contempt proceedings for further hearing on February 2.
The controversy forms part of a prolonged dispute over the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam on the ancient stone pillar atop Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai district. Despite repeated orders from the Madurai Bench, including the December 1 ruling and its reaffirmation by a division bench, district authorities and police cited law-and-order concerns to prevent devotees from accessing the site, prompting the initiation of contempt proceedings.
Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu government has moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s directions, while devotees have maintained that the centuries-old ritual must be respected and protected in accordance with law.
