The Madras High Court on Wednesday, 18 March 2026, witnessed sharp exchanges during the hearing of contempt petitions related to the failure to light the Karthigai Deepam atop the Thirupparankundram hill in Madurai, despite earlier court directions.
As reported in Bar and Bench, Justice GR Swaminathan remarked that he believes in respecting court orders, unlike local authorities in Madurai, who had failed to implement judicial directives in the matter.
The observation came after counsel representing the State submitted that a Division Bench of the Court had, on Tuesday, stayed all contempt proceedings pending before Justice Swaminathan. However, counsel appearing for the temple devotees argued that the stay order was limited only to the 4 December 2025 order passed by the single judge.
Justice Swaminathan stated that he would rely strictly on the text of the interim stay order placed before him and questioned the State’s interpretation of its scope. “How do I know what prayer you have made there?” the judge asked, when the State referred to a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) challenging all contempt proceedings.
The State maintained that the interim stay extended to the contempt proceedings mentioned in the CMP, which was recorded in the Division Bench’s order. It further suggested that a clarification could be obtained from the Registry to avoid ambiguity.
Rejecting the suggestion, Justice Swaminathan said, “It is not my job. I will go by the interim order you have produced before me. Why should I (ask Registry for more clarifications)? Is it my job? It’s not my job. It is my duty to obey whatever the Division Bench has passed. I believe in showing respect to court orders, unlike you people.”
The matter arises from a December 2025 ruling in which the Court held that a stone pillar on the Thirupparankundram hill is a Deepathoon belonging to the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple. The Court had directed that the traditional Karthigai Deepam be restored at the site, clarifying that such observance would not affect the rights of the nearby Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah.
Despite the order, the Deepam was not lit during the festival, prompting devotees to initiate contempt proceedings against the authorities.
During the hearing, Justice Swaminathan also questioned the absence of senior police officials who had been directed to appear in person. “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?” he asked.
Addressing Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran, the judge further said, “Don’t we have to decide this (AAG) Mr. Ravindran? Don’t be so defiant. Don’t show your defiance against me.”
The AAG responded, “It is not so milord. I don’t know why Lordship is taking it like that.”
When the State again sought time to approach the Registry for clarification on the scope of the stay, the judge reiterated his position, stating, “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 subsequently adjourned all three contempt petitions.
In its interim observations, the Court noted that it had earlier granted an adjournment based on a request from senior counsel representing the temple management, who had sought time to consider a suggestion for symbolic compliance with the Court’s directive.
“Since a request for adjournment came from a highly respected senior counsel and ground was only to consider a suggestion from the court, I had no reason to reject the request, even though the petitioners’ counsel opposed the same vehemently,” the Court recorded.
However, Justice Swaminathan observed that appeals had been filed during this adjournment period. The Court acknowledged that the respondents had the right to pursue legal remedies but pointed out that an earlier Division Bench had already dismissed an appeal filed by the District Collector and the Commissioner of Police, while leaving it to the single judge to determine whether there was wilful disobedience.
“Taking advantage of two-week window, appeals were filed. Respondents have right to avail judicial remedies. However, the fact remains that challenging the earlier, direction, the District Collector and Commissioner of Police had filed appeal. Said appeal was dismissed by Division Bench (earlier), and Division Bench had specifically observed that it is for single judge to test if disobedience of December 4 order was wilful or not,” the order stated.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on 9 April 2026, a day after the Division Bench is scheduled to hear the appeals challenging Justice Swaminathan’s orders.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
