The Madras High Court asked the Tamil Nadu government if it intends to move the Supreme Court against directive for lighting the Karthigai Deepam lamp. Justice Swaminathan said it “would be atrocious if the temple challenges the verdict.”
The Madras High Court questioned the Tamil Nadu government regarding its intention to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s directives to ensure the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp at a Deepathoon located on the revered Thiruparankundram hillock.
The court was hearing a contempt case filed against the Madurai District Collector and district police over their purported noncompliance with these directives.
Justice GR Swaminathan had previously warned that he would not dismiss the case without an apology and satisfactory explanations from the district officials involved.
On this occasion, the judge mentioned that he would halt further proceedings on the contempt case if the State indicated its willingness to comply with the directives. He inquired whether the Tamil Nadu government plans to approach the Supreme Court for an appeal.
He stated,
“If police and (District administration) say they intend to go to the Supreme Court, I will adjourn the proceedings by a month. No issue. Please make a statement. I won’t take one step further,”
Justice Swaminathan urged the State’s counsel for a direct answer, suggesting that he might close the contempt proceedings if the State had no intention of appealing to the Supreme Court.
The Additional Advocate General (AAG) replied,
“Things are being discussed and contemplated, but a decision is yet to be taken. (At this stage) I can’t say whether we are or we are not.”
Justice Swaminathan expressed that it would be atrocious for the administration of the Thiruparankundram Arulmigu Subramania Swamy temple to appeal a verdict that aims to benefit the temple’s devotees.
He noted that there are four parties involved: the dargah near the Deepathoon site, the temple, the police, and the administration. While all parties may be entitled to appeal, he felt it would be absurd for the temple to do so, as they are meant to uphold the rights of the devotees rather than undermine them.
He remarked,
“That would be my perception, because they can’t be said to be aggrieved by this order. Going on appeal (by temple), according to me, would be atrocious.”
The judge decided to further address the matter on March 2. By then, the Madurai District Collector/District Magistrate, KJ Praveen Kumar (IAS), is expected to file an additional affidavit providing clarification on his actions.
The contempt proceedings concerning the Collector have been separated from those involving other authorities, including the Madurai Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, and an Executive Officer.
Senior Advocate V Giri, representing the district authorities, asserted that none had maliciously disregarded court orders but acted to maintain public order and prevent communal clashes, given the significant crowds from various factions that gathered near the hillock last month.
Justice Swaminathan, however, voiced skepticism about the authorities’ remorse regarding their failure to follow court directives.
He referenced a January 2026 article from Caravan magazine, which quoted Deputy Commissioner of Police Inigo Thivyan as saying that he would face any consequences arising from his actions calmly.
In response, Giri and the State’s counsel emphasized that it’s unlikely any State officer would openly disregard the Court’s directives.
A State counsel elaborated,
“No officer would ever say, ‘I will not respect the orders of the court’ …When 1000s gathered…out of anxiety, someone may say something. In a spur of the moment (such comments), may come,”
Giri questioned whether the reported comment was taken out of context but acknowledged that Thivyan should clarify his conduct if he indeed made such statements. He suggested that some media may have been eager to keep the topic alive for extended discussion.
Giri added,
“Some journalists have a talent to pick what is necessary to keep the fire burning. (To say something like he doesn’t care about consequences), I don’t think it has been done. But he is there before lordship, let him answer,”
He also requested additional time for the Collector to submit an affidavit if Justice Swaminathan was not inclined to dismiss the contempt proceedings against the IAS officer.
The judge granted this request and noted that he was somewhat persuaded by the senior counsel’s arguments to adopt a more lenient stance regarding the contempt case against the other three district officers.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
