Madras High Court Justice GR Swaminathan G.R. Swaminathan criticised Madurai authorities for failing to light the Karthigai Deepam atop Thiruparankundram Hillock despite clear court directions issued. He said he respects court orders unlike those officials, stressing accountability within the Madras High Court system today.
CHENNAI: Madras High Court Justice G.R. Swaminathan criticised local Madurai authorities for not following court orders to light the Karthigai deepam atop Thiruparankundram hillock, saying he believes in respecting court orders unlike those authorities.
The remarks came after the State’s counsel informed the court that a Division Bench had stayed all contempt proceedings pending before Justice Swaminathan in this matter.
The lawyer for temple devotees, who had filed the contempt petitions, replied that the stay applied only to Justice Swaminathan’s December 4, 2025 order.
Justice Swaminathan said he would rely on the exact wording of the interim stay order presented to him and asked where it said that the entire contempt proceedings were stayed.
The Division Bench’s interim order reads,
“Considering the submissions made on either side, there shall be an order of interim stay till 08.04.2026.”
State counsel argued the common interim order also covered a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) that sought to challenge all contempt proceedings. The CMP is listed on the first page of the Division Bench’s order, the State noted, and therefore the interim stay should extend to the contempt matters referenced in the CMP’s prayer.
Justice Swaminathan asked,
“How do I know what prayer you have made there?”
When the State suggested obtaining a registry report to clarify the CMP’s prayer, the judge refused, saying it was not his task and that he would adhere to the interim order before him.
He added,
“I believe in showing respect to court orders, unlike you people.”
The dispute arises from a December 2025 ruling that declared a stone pillar on Thiruparankundram hillock to be a Deepathoon belonging to the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple.
The court had ordered restoration of the traditional Karthigai Deepam lighting at the site, while clarifying that the observance would not affect the rights of the nearby Muslim shrine, the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah.
Despite that direction, the lamp was not lit during the Karthigai festival, prompting devotees to initiate contempt proceedings.
During the hearing, Justice Swaminathan rebuked the State’s apparent noncompliance.
He told Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran,
“Don’t we have to decide this (AAG) Mr. Ravindran? Don’t be so defiant. Don’t show your defiance against me,”
The AAG replied,
“It is not so milord. I don’t know why Lordship is taking it like that.”
The court also questioned why Madurai police officers required to appear personally were absent.
The judge asked,
“Where are the police officials? Answer that first… Does Inigo (Deputy Commissioner AG Inigo Divya) and Loganathan (Commissioner of Madurai City Police, J Loganathan) think too much of themselves? I gave exemption only to trustees and the Collector, I didn’t give it to the police. Why they are not present before me?”
When the State again sought permission to approach the registry for clarification about whether all contempt proceedings were stayed, Justice Swaminathan said,
“I know how to respect the Division Bench order… I don’t want to see their (police officers) faces hereafter. I will deal with them in the manner known to law.”
The court ultimately adjourned the three contempt petitions in the matter. The interim order also recorded that the contempt hearing had previously been adjourned because senior counsel for the Thiruparankundram temple management asked for time to consider a suggestion to “symbolically” comply with the Court’s directive.
The judge said he granted that adjournment out of respect for the senior counsel, despite strong opposition from the petitioners’ lawyers.
Justice Swaminathan noted that, during that two-week pause, appeals were filed. Although respondents have the right to pursue judicial remedies, he pointed out that a previous Division Bench had left it to the single judge to determine whether any disobedience of the December 4 order was wilful.
The contempt matter is listed for further hearing on April 9, a day after the Division Bench is scheduled to hear the appeals against Justice Swaminathan’s orders.
The dispute concerns the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam, an important Hindu ritual, on Thiruparankundram Hill a site revered for its association with Lord Murugan.
The controversy arose after the December 1, 2025 order directing authorities to facilitate the lighting of the Deepam; alleged non-compliance of that directive led to contempt proceedings before a single judge.
In an earlier hearing, the single judge had given the trustees of the Thiruparankundram Subramaniya Swamy temple two weeks to respond to the court’s suggestion that five persons be permitted, at the court’s nomination, to offer prayers at the ‘deepathoon’ located atop the hill for 15 minutes.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE