The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court issued a stern caution on Friday, making it clear that the judiciary will not tolerate degrading remarks or personal attacks against judges. The comments, delivered during a hearing connected to the ongoing Thirupparankundram lamp-lighting controversy, underscored the Bench’s deep concern over attempts to undermine the authority and dignity of the judicial system.

The strong observations came from a division bench comprising Justices G. Jayachandran and K. K. Ramakrishnan. The matter arose when advocate M. R. Venkatesh, representing the writ petitioners, informed the court that certain individuals were making personal remarks against the single judge who had earlier issued an order permitting the lighting of a ceremonial lamp atop the ancient stone pillar located on the Thirupparankundram hill near a Dargah.

In response, the Bench delivered a firm warning. It observed that persons violating the law or resorting to provocative behaviour often assume that there will be no consequence for their actions. The judges cautioned that such assumptions were gravely mistaken. The court instructed the counsel to advise their clients against making derogatory remarks about members of the judiciary, emphasising that patience should not be mistaken for weakness. The Bench issued a clear message: the judiciary will act decisively if such conduct continues.

The judges went on to state that any attempt to demoralise the judiciary would be met with appropriate legal action. They noted that the Constitution and the system it upholds could not survive if individuals believe they can demean the institution without accountability. In a pointed remark, the Bench said that regardless of whether a person is in power or whether they dare to speak or stay silent, the judicial institution must not be undermined. Otherwise, the Constitution would exist merely on paper, stripped of its intended authority.

Justice Jayachandran and Justice Ramakrishnan also made it clear that while judges are bound by norms that prevent them from responding publicly to personal attacks, this restraint should not be exploited. They warned that if provocations continue unchecked, strict action would be taken to reinforce the sanctity of the judicial process. The dignity of the judiciary, they stressed, is not open to compromise, and those who seek to erode it will face legal consequences.

The controversy at the centre of these remarks relates to an order from Justice G. R. Swaminathan, who had directed the management of the Arulmighu Subrahmanya Swamy Temple to facilitate the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon on the evening of December 3. This lamp-lighting ceremony, part of a longstanding religious tradition, had become a point of contention, prompting legal intervention and division among stakeholders.

Despite the clear directive from the single judge, the order was not implemented. Petitioners subsequently approached Justice Swaminathan again, seeking the initiation of contempt proceedings against the temple authorities for non-compliance with the December 1 verdict. The failure to carry out the court’s instruction escalated the dispute, leading to further legal complications.

On the other side, the temple’s executive officer, along with the Madurai District Collector and the city’s police commissioner, submitted an appeal before the division bench seeking to quash the single judge’s order. Their plea argued against the implementation of the directive, leading the matter into a more complex judicial phase, involving multiple parties and cross-appeals.

Recognising the need to comprehensively address the various petitions and objections, the division bench announced that it would consolidate all related appeals and hear them together. The judges set December 12 as the date on which they would deliver the verdict in the Karthigai Deepam case, but only after all existing parties had submitted their appeals. The Bench clarified that only those already involved in the matter would be permitted to file pleas, and no new parties would be allowed to implead themselves at this stage, maintaining procedural order and avoiding further complications.

While the division bench prepared to hear the consolidated appeals, Justice Swaminathan, who was handling the contempt petition separately, adjourned that matter to December 9. This petition, filed by Rama Ravikumar, concerns the alleged non-compliance of the temple authorities with the earlier order allowing the lamp-lighting ceremony. The adjournment allows time for both the contempt petition and the broader appeal to proceed through proper judicial channels.

The situation reflects a larger tension between legal directives and administrative responses in matters involving religious practices, local governance, and cultural traditions. The court’s warnings also highlight a growing concern about personal attacks on judges, especially in high-profile or sensitive cases. The judiciary has repeatedly emphasized that its independence and authority must remain free from public provocation or attempts to influence legal proceedings through intimidation or rhetoric.

In the contemporary socio-political climate, courts across India have increasingly faced situations in which their rulings or the judges themselves become targets of commentary. While freedom of expression is constitutionally protected, the judiciary has reiterated that this freedom does not extend to derogatory personal attacks or statements intended to erode public confidence in judicial institutions. The comments from the Madurai Bench underscore this tension and the court’s determination to preserve its integrity.

As the legal proceedings continue, both the contempt petition and the appeals surrounding the lamp-lighting order remain critical to the unfolding case. The Bench’s insistence on maintaining judicial decorum, along with its clear warning against provocative behaviour, signals that the court views this matter not only as a localized dispute but also as a test of judicial authority and constitutional values.

The upcoming hearings on December 9 and December 12 are likely to shed more light on the legal and administrative dimensions of the issue. Until then, the court’s stern message serves as a reminder that the judiciary’s role must be respected and that any attempt to undermine it will be met with decisive action.