Justice G.R. Swaminathan heard contempt proceedings over alleged non-compliance in the Thirupparankundram Deepam matter, with officials saying prohibitory orders were only to control crowds. The Madras High Court granted time to the District Collector to file an additional affidavit and adjourned the case to March 2.
Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madras High Court, sitting at the Madurai Bench, heard contempt proceedings against the Madurai District Collector, the Commissioner of Police, and the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department in connection with the alleged non-compliance of his directions relating to the Thirupparankundram Deepam issue.
Senior Advocate V Giri, appearing for all three officials, read out the affidavit filed by the Madurai District Collector before the Court. As per the affidavit, the Collector explained that a prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (earlier Section 144 CrPC) had to be issued purely to maintain law and order.
The Collector stated that he had received several intelligence and administrative inputs indicating a possible threat to public peace, which made it necessary to promulgate the prohibitory order.
The affidavit further clarified that the prohibitory order was never intended to stop or interfere with the implementation of any judicial order. It was stressed that the only objective behind issuing the order was to prevent any disturbance to law and order in view of the situation on the ground.
Continuing his arguments, Senior Advocate V. Giri submitted that Justice Swaminathan had later quashed the Collector’s prohibitory order. He pointed out that the affidavits filed by the officials clearly show that there was no intention to disobey or undermine the Court’s directions.
According to him, the officers acted in an extraordinary situation where very large crowds had gathered, and the situation was becoming difficult to control.
He explained that thousands of people were attempting to climb the hillock, and the prohibitory order was issued only as a crowd-control measure. It was not meant, in any manner, to violate or override the Court’s directions.
Senior Advocate Giri argued that the prohibitory order was the only practical option available to the officers at that time to manage the swelling crowd. He reiterated that there was nothing on record to suggest any deliberate or wilful disobedience of the Court’s order and requested that the officials be spared from contempt proceedings.
He urged the Court to drop the contempt case, stating that the actions of the officers were driven by administrative necessity and public safety concerns, not by defiance of judicial authority.
During the hearing, Justice Swaminathan observed that he regularly reads newspapers and magazines and had come across a media report quoting a police officer at Thirupparankundram who had “calmly” said that they were “ready to face any consequences.” The Judge directly asked whether any officer had actually made such a statement.
Responding to this, Senior Advocate V. Giri submitted that if any officer had indeed made such a statement, then that officer should be identified, brought before the Court, and made to face the consequences.
Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran, however, submitted that no officer would admit to making such a statement. He requested the Court not to pursue the issue further and suggested that even if such a statement had been made, the officer concerned could be asked to apologise.
Adding to this, Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan submitted that any such statement, if at all made, might have been spoken out of anxiety in the middle of a tense situation involving a large gathering of people. He argued that it may not have been intentional or reflective of any disrespect towards the Court.
Later in the proceedings, Senior Advocate V. Giri requested a four-week extension of time for the District Collector to file an additional affidavit. He reiterated that the Collector had no intention whatsoever to interfere with or disobey the Court’s order.
Accepting this request, Justice Swaminathan passed an order granting the four-week extension. The Court decided to separate the contempt proceedings against the District Collector from those against the other officials.
The contempt proceedings against the Collector were adjourned to March 2. The Court also exempted the District Collector from making further personal appearances in relation to the contempt proceedings involving the other alleged contemnors.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Thirupparankundram Deepam
