The District Collector of Madurai informed the Madras High Court on Monday (2 February 2026) that the prohibitory order issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to lighting a lamp atop the Thirupparankundram Hills was not intended to prevent the implementation of court directions but was passed to ensure that “no law-and-order situation” arose.
The submission was made before Justice GR Swaminathan, who was hearing a contempt petition initiated by the court over alleged non-compliance with an earlier order directing the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) atop the Thirupparankundram Hills.
During the hearing, the District Collector, the Commissioner of Police, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police tendered unconditional apologies and requested that the contempt proceedings be dropped.
It may be noted that on December 1, the single judge had directed the management of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light the lamp at 6 PM on December 3. Alleging that no arrangements had been made to comply with this direction, the petitioner-devotee moved a contempt petition on December 3.
The court thereafter permitted the petitioner, along with ten others, to light the lamp themselves and directed the Central Industrial Security Force to provide protection to the petitioners.
However, when the devotees went to the site to light the lamp, they were restricted by the authorities. The District Collector imposed a prohibitory order under Section 144, and the Commissioner of Police, citing the prohibitory order, refused permission for the lighting of the lamp. The prohibitory order was later quashed by the single judge.
Earlier, the court had summoned senior police and revenue officials and issued notice to the State, observing that the directions of the court had allegedly been disregarded on the ground of policing and public safety concerns arising from large gatherings.
On 17 December 2025, the court directed the Chief Secretary to file detailed affidavits, taking a responsible stand and explaining the reasons for non-compliance with the court’s order.
In a previous hearing, the court observed that three types of contempt were involved in the case. The first was the disobedience of the initial court order. The second was the issuance of the prohibitory order under Section 144 CrPC. The third, according to the court, was that even after the prohibitory order had been quashed, the officers had continued to resist the implementation of the court’s direction.
Criticising the conduct of the officers, Justice Swaminathan had earlier stated that he could not forgive the District Collector for issuing a prohibitory order that frustrated the court’s direction, and for resisting implementation even after the order was quashed. The court also observed that, until then, the officers had not shown any remorse.
When the matter was taken up on Monday (2 February 2026), affidavits were filed by the District Collector, the Commissioner of Police, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, stating that there was no wilful disobedience of the court’s order.
The court was informed that while the court had permitted only the Executive Officers of the temple to light the lamp, devotees had started gathering in large numbers, leading to the situation going out of control. According to the officers, the prohibitory order was passed only to prevent a possible law and order situation.
Senior advocate V. Giri, appearing for the officers, submitted: “Persons who have not been given such right started gathering in thousands and wanted to do it (light lamp). Maybe to accompany the Executive Officer. Then situation started getting out of hand…It’s easier to now say that the situation could have been handled better. But at that point of time, the crowd had to be controlled otherwise things wouldn’t have worked out. At that time, only a prohibitory order could have ensured implementation of court order.”
The court, however, orally expressed concern over the manner in which the Commissioner of Police had allegedly responded while preventing persons from climbing the hill to light the lamp. Referring to a recent magazine article, the court said that the officer was quoted as saying he was “ready to face the consequence”.
In response, Giri, along with Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran and Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan, submitted that if any officer had made such a statement, the court could directly question the officer present in court to ascertain whether the statement had been made and in what context.
After hearing the submissions, the court stated that while it was convinced with respect to the explanations offered by the other officers, it continued to have concerns regarding the conduct of the District Collector in issuing the prohibitory order despite the court’s directions.
Giri then requested the court to grant additional time to enable the District Collector to file an additional affidavit explaining his position.
After hearing the matter at length, the court adjourned the case to 2 March 2026 and dispensed with the personal appearance of all officers except the District Collector.
Source: LiveLaw
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
