The Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench on Friday, 9 January 2026, came down heavily on district and police authorities for repeatedly defying court orders in a contempt case relating to the failure to permit the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam atop the Thirupparankundram hill, warning that contempt charges would be framed if written apologies were not submitted.

Hearing the matter, Justice GR Swaminathan expressed strong displeasure over the failure of the Madurai district administration to file any response despite being granted ample time. The judge said the matter would be posted on Monday, 12 January 2026, for framing of contempt charges.

When the State counsel informed the court that the counsel representing the District Collector was ill and sought time, the judge asked, “Are they filing any written response today?” On being told that no response would be filed, Justice Swaminathan said, “Then I am posting the matter for framing charges on Monday.”

The judge noted that the case had been taken up in the first week of December and that the authorities had nearly four weeks to respond. “Today, I gave opportunity for them to respond. Matter was taken in Dec 1st week, they had full 4 weeks. You ought have (filed response). You have not,” he said.

Justice Swaminathan outlined what he described as three distinct acts of contempt in the case. “There are three kinds of contempt – first being disobedience of primary order, then passing a prohibitory order to prevent lighting of lamp and third, even after prohibitory order was quashed, the Court’s directives were defied,” he observed.

Referring specifically to the District Collector, the judge said, “Even (after quashing prohibitory order) DC had audacity to resist implementation of this order.”

The court also questioned why no criminal trespass complaint had been filed by the temple management after a flag was allegedly tied by a dargah on temple property. “That is temple property. How did you permit tying of flag by dargah?” the judge asked, recording that such a complaint could be filed and that once lodged, “jurisdictional police is expected to act in the matter.”

Expressing displeasure at the attitude of the authorities, Justice Swaminathan remarked, “They don’t seem to have slightest of remorse, you expect court to take this lying down?” He then directly questioned the Collector, asking, “Let me ask Collector direct question. Was it passed on your own? You take responsibility?”

The Collector, who was present in court, replied that the prohibitory order was passed “based on police inputs.” The court recorded that the order had been passed by the Collector on his own and not on the instructions of any other authority.

Justice Swaminathan further noted the absence of any apology from the officials. “Even today there is no affidavit of apology or remote (expression) of remorse,” he said.

Referring to appeals pending against his earlier directions in the contempt case, the judge said, “I have to eventually abide by what Division Bench says … But I won’t forgive on two counts – One, this collector passing prohibitory order to frustrate court order.” He added, “And two, after quashing the prohibitory orders, they had the audacity, the gall to resist. These two, unforgivable! Unless they apologise in writing.”

Responding to the court, the State counsel submitted that no one should consider themselves above the law. “Any person should not think they are above law. I don’t subscribe to that view,” he said, requesting time to file affidavits. He urged the court to post the matter on 2 February 2026 and consider framing contempt charges only after examining the affidavits, adding, “They are not going to run away, they are here.”

The court also pulled up Deputy Commissioner of Police Inigo Thivyan. Addressing him, Justice Swaminathan said, “You knew prohibitory order was quashed, and yet you did it on your own.”

In a broader warning to the officials, the judge observed, “One day Court may have to come to rescue of (these officers), then you may understand. When Inigo needs some promotion opportunity or something happens – God forbid, let nothing happen and let him have a peaceful career – but if something happens, he may come to the writ court and seek our intervention. Then, they’ll expect court to come to their rescue.”

He also asked the executive officer of the temple whether DMK HR&CE Minister Sekarbabu asked them to not implement the court order.

In its order, the court recorded that appeals filed by the department against the contempt proceedings were yet to be taken up by the Division Bench and directed that the matter be listed on Monday for framing of charges in the contempt proceedings.

(This article is based on an X Thread By Bar and Bench)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.