The Madras High Court has issued a strong warning to senior officials of the Madurai district administration and police, cautioning that contempt of court charges will be framed if they fail to provide a satisfactory explanation for allegedly defying judicial orders permitting the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram hill.

Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench observed that the actions of the district collector and police authorities appeared to be a deliberate attempt to frustrate and nullify the court’s orders, raising serious concerns about administrative overreach and non-compliance with judicial directions. The court said that unless “proper cause is shown,” contempt charges would be formally framed against the officials on February 2, 2026.

Court Flags ‘Deliberate Defiance’ of Judicial Orders

The controversy stems from the High Court’s December 1, 2025 order, which explicitly permitted devotees to light the traditional Karthigai Deepam at the ancient stone pillar known as the Deepathoon, located atop Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai district.

Despite this clear directive, the district administration issued a prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, restricting access to the hill, while police personnel allegedly prevented devotees from reaching the site on December 4.

Justice Swaminathan noted that the prohibitory order was passed after the court had allowed the ritual, and that even after the order was later quashed, the police continued to obstruct implementation of the court’s directions.

“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,” the judge recorded.
“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.”

The court named the Madurai district collector and the deputy commissioner of police as alleged contemnors, making it clear that the matter involved not merely administrative lapses but potential wilful disobedience of judicial authority.

Contempt Petitions and Officials Named

The court was hearing contempt petitions filed against:

• The Madurai district collector
• The city police commissioner
• The executive officer of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple

The petitions were moved after devotees complained that they were prevented from accessing the Deepathoon site despite repeated court orders, including follow-up hearings after December 1.

Justice Swaminathan stressed that law-and-order concerns cannot be invoked mechanically to override judicial directions, particularly after the court had already considered such issues while granting permission.

Court Rejects Administrative Excuses

Earlier, on December 17, the court had directed the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary to file detailed affidavits explaining why the High Court’s orders were not complied with and to take a “responsible stand” in the matter.

When the case was taken up again on Friday, the Additional Advocate General informed the court that affidavits would be filed at the next hearing, citing the hospitalisation of the law officer representing the district collector.

Justice Swaminathan expressed dissatisfaction with this explanation, observing that administrative inconvenience or absence of counsel cannot justify continued defiance of court orders.

The judge’s remarks underscored a recurring judicial concern: that executive authorities cannot cite procedural or logistical reasons to delay or dilute compliance with binding court directions.

Temple Executive Officer Seeks Criminal Action

In a significant development during the hearing, Yagna Narayanan, the executive officer of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, made a submission that escalated the dispute beyond contempt proceedings.

Referring to a January 6 ruling by a division bench of the Madras High Court, which affirmed that the Deepathoon area belongs to the temple, Narayanan argued that the management of the nearby dargah was liable for criminal prosecution.

He informed the court that he intended to lodge a police complaint and initiate criminal proceedings against dargah officials for alleged trespass. According to Narayanan, during the Sandhanakoodu festival, a red flag bearing a crescent symbol was tied to a sacred and historically significant tree in the Deepathoon area without permission.

The court recorded this submission without passing any immediate orders on the proposed criminal action.

Officials Deny External Pressure

The district magistrate and the deputy commissioner of police, responding to the court’s observations, submitted that they had acted independently and not under any political, religious, or external pressure.

The court recorded their statements but made it clear that such claims would be examined in light of the sequence of events and documentary evidence. The contempt proceedings were posted for February 2, 2026, when the court will decide whether charges should be formally framed.

Background: A Prolonged and Sensitive Dispute

The dispute over lighting the Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram hill has a long and complex history, involving religious traditions, administrative control, and competing claims over land and access.

Devotees maintain that the lighting of the Deepam at the Deepathoon is a centuries-old Hindu ritual, deeply embedded in the cultural and religious practices associated with the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple.

District authorities, on the other hand, have repeatedly cited law-and-order concerns, pointing to the hill’s proximity to religious sites of different faiths and the potential for tension during festivals.

However, the High Court has consistently held that such concerns cannot be used as a blanket justification to deny constitutionally protected religious practices, especially after the judiciary has examined and ruled on the issue.

Government Moves Supreme Court

Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu government has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s directions permitting the lighting of the Deepam. The appeal signals the state’s continued resistance to the Madurai Bench’s orders, even as the contempt proceedings unfold.

Legal observers note that the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could have broader implications for how administrative powers are balanced against judicial authority and religious freedoms.

Larger Implications

The High Court’s stern warning highlights a fundamental constitutional principle: executive authorities are bound by judicial orders, irrespective of administrative preferences or perceived difficulties.

Justice Swaminathan’s remarks suggest that the court views the issue not merely as a religious dispute, but as a test case for the rule of law—specifically, whether district officials can effectively override court orders by invoking emergency provisions and policing powers.

If contempt charges are framed, the case could set a significant precedent on accountability of civil servants and police officers for non-compliance with court directions.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s warning to Madurai officials marks a critical moment in the Deepathoon controversy. With contempt proceedings looming, allegations of deliberate obstruction, and parallel litigation before the Supreme Court, the dispute has evolved into a complex legal and constitutional battle.

At its core lies a broader question: Can administrative authority supersede judicial orders in the name of law and order? The Madurai Bench’s answer so far has been an emphatic no. The next hearing on February 2 is likely to determine whether that stance translates into punitive action against officials—or a renewed attempt at reconciliation between law, faith, and governance.