Advocate S. Arunachalam, with 29 years of standing at the Bar, has submitted a written representation to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, alleging that he was insulted and forcibly removed from court during the hearing of writ appeals connected to the Thirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam dispute.
The representation relates to proceedings arising from a common order dated 1 December 2025, passed by Justice GR Swaminathan, in a batch of writ petitions concerning the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam on 3 December 2025 at Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Thirukoil, one of the most sacred shrines of Lord Muruga in Tamil Nadu.
In his petition to the Chief Justice, Arunachalam stated that the learned single judge had disposed of the writ petitions in haste, allegedly in violation of rules governing writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and in breach of principles of natural justice. He further pointed out that Karthigai Deepam on the hill is an annual festival and that the next observance would only fall due on 29 November 2026, contending that there was no urgency warranting expedited appellate hearings.
He noted that multiple writ appeals arising from the common order including W.A.(MD) Nos. 3188, 3189, 3204, 3211, 3212, 3213, 3217, 3218, 3219, 3220, 3221, 3222, 3223, 3225, 3226, 3227, 3229, 3230, 3231 and 3232 of 2025 were being heard by a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench on a day-to-day basis. He further stated that certain writ appeals filed with leave applications were not being listed along with the other appeals.
According to Arunachalam, when he mentioned C.M.P.(MD) No. 20137 of 2025 on 16 October 2025, seeking leave to file a writ appeal, the presiding judge, Justice G Jayachandran, became angry, asked for his name and enrolment number, and subsequently directed the CISF personnel to remove him from the courtroom. He alleged that an order was also dictated to be addressed to the Bar Council.
In his representation, the advocate stated that judges enjoy immunity, but advocates are officers of the court and have a responsibility to espouse the cause of justice. He claimed that the incident had affected his dignity and professional reputation.
Arunachalam further outlined the credentials of his client, Dr. D. Senthilnathan, stating that he holds a Ph.D. in Quantum Chemistry, has worked as an R&D scientist at the Centre for Nuclear Energy Association in Grenoble, France, and at the University of Jerusalem, Israel, has published 14 research articles in reputed international journals, and is presently working as an R&D Professor at PRIST University, Thanjavur.
He stated that his client is a follower and scholar of Saiva Siddhanta and that the litigation was intended to bring to the court’s notice that the Thirupparankundram temple follows Saiva Siddhanta, and that its sacred tenets and rituals should not be sacrificed to satisfy the ego of certain individuals or to create communal disharmony for political reasons. He alleged that the impugned order had been passed without adequate consideration of the temple’s rites and ceremonies and would adversely affect the Hindu public.
Arunachalam requested the Chief Justice to transfer four writ appeals, W.A.(MD) SR Nos. 108684, 108550, 106983 and 107683 of 2025, along with connected miscellaneous petitions, to any other Division Bench.
Advocate S. Arunachalam, with 29 years of standing at the Bar, has complained to #MadrasHighCourt Chief Justice that he was insulted during the hearing of the writ appeals related to the Tirupparankundram Deepam issue. pic.twitter.com/EXBtpUa4Sg
— Mohamed Imranullah S (@imranhindu) December 19, 2025
However, legal sources familiar with the proceedings stated that, in substance, there was no material difference between the arguments Arunachalam sought to advance and the submissions already placed before the Division Bench by the Tamil Nadu government in the Tirupparankundram Deepam matter.
According to these sources, reiterating the same arguments would amount to a waste of judicial time. Once the Bench had expressed its unwillingness to entertain the petition, it was incumbent upon counsel to explore other legal remedies available in law. Persisting with the same submissions and continuing to argue with the Bench despite clear judicial disinclination, they said, could not be justified.
They further cautioned that permitting such conduct and allowing repeated arguments on identical grounds would set an unhealthy precedent and undermine orderly court proceedings.
In the #Tiruparankundram issue, there is no material difference between the arguments he seeks to advance before this court and those already placed by the government before the Division Bench. Reiterating the same submissions amounts to a waste of the court’s time. Once the… https://t.co/d92JfDkHcY
— Harish M (@chnmharish) December 19, 2025
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
