"Won't forgive without apology": Madras HC on authorities defying orders to light lamp at Thiruparankundram hill

The Madras High Court on Friday warned district authorities in Madurai that it may frame contempt of court charges against them over their defiance of earlier court directives on the lighting of Karthigai Deepam (lamp to mark the Hindu festival of lights) at a Deepathoon atop the sacred Thiruparankundram hillock. .Justice GR Swaminathan today noted that despite a contempt case in the matter having been posted on several dates, the Madurai Collector and Deputy Commissioner of Police were yet to file their written response. Instead, a government counsel today urged the Court for more time to file an affidavit, stating that the Collector's lawyer was recently hospitalised and was unwell. The Court was not impressed by the submission"Are they filing any written response today? They are not filing today. Then I am posting the matter on Monday for framing of charges. Today, I had given them an opportunity to respond. They don't want to respond. The matter was taken in first week of December, they had full four weeks to give their stand in writing. They have not done so. I gave an opportunity to show cause, they have not shown cause. I am calling the case on Monday for framing charges," Justice Swaminathan said..The Court proceeded to record in its order,"To frustrate the judicial order, Thiru.Praveen Kumar, IAS, passed prohibitory order under Section 163 of BNSS, 2023. Even though this prohibitory order was quashed by this Court, Thiru.Inigo Divyan, Deputy Commissioner of Police obstructed the implementation of the order of this Court. Unless proper cause is shown, charges will be framed against the contemnors on 02.02.2026..During the hearing, judge said that he is not inclined to take a lenient view in the matter, given that the district authorities had not expressed the slightest semblance of remorse for wilfully defying court orders. "There are three kinds of contempt, not one. Most egregious contempt was by Mr. Inigo (Deputy Commissioner of Police). Disobedience of primary order; two, passing (prohibitory order) under BNSS; three, even after knowing that prohibitory order was quashed by this court, the DC had the audacity to resist the implementation of the order. They (district authorities) don't seem to have slightest of remorse, you expect court to take this lying down? Even today there is no affidavit of apology or remote (expression) of remorse," the judge remarked. .They (district authorities) don't seem to have slightest of remorse, you expect court to take this lying down?Madras High Court.Justice Swaminathan also acknowledged that appeals preferred by the district authorities against his directives in the contempt case were pending before a Division Bench. He assured that he would be bound by the outcome in those appeals. Nevertheless, he indicated that he would not drop the matter lightly. "I have to eventually abide by what the Hon'ble Division Bench says ...But I won't forgive on two counts - One, this collector passing a prohibitory order to frustrate court orders. And two, after quashing the prohibitory orders, they had the audacity, the gall to resist. These two, unforgivable! Unless they apologise in writing," he said. .Notably, Justice Swaminathan today also quizzed the management of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy as to why they had not taken action against the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah management for tying a flag to mark the dargah's "Santhanakoodu" festival near the Kallathi tree, which the judge said was temple property."That is temple property. How did you permit tying of flag by dargah?" the judge asked. On being told that no such permission for tying the flag was given, the Court asked the temple's representative what it proposes to do about it.The temple's executive officer, present in court, told the judge that a criminal trespass complaint would be filed. The Court then directed that the police act on the said complaint once it is filed. .The case concerns a sacred hillock in Madurai which houses both the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy temple and the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah.In December 2025, Justice Swaminathan ruled that a stone pillar at the lower of two peaks at the hillock is a Deepathoon (used to light lamps) on property belonging to the temple at the hillock. The judge held that the Hindu temple should restore the tradition of lighting the Karthigai Deepam at this pillar, in addition to lighting the lamp at an existing site at the Ucchi Pillayar temple. The Court ruled that such lamp lighting will not affect the rights of the nearby dargah. .The State authorities' failed to comply with this and related directives. Instead, they challenged the single judge order before a Division Bench. The Karthigai Deepam festival of 2025 passed without the lamp being lit.Thereafter, on January 6 this year, the Division Bench upheld the single judge's ruling in the matter.Meanwhile, the present contempt case was filed by Hindu devotees over the failure of the State authorities to comply with the single judge's directives. Today, the State's counsel urged the Court to give time till February 2 so that affidavits may be filed by the district authorities to explain their stance. He added that the Court could take a call on the need to frame contempt charges after.The Court eventually adjourned the case till February 2. .[Read Order].[Live Coverage].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.