During the hearing, the State sought more time, informing the court that a related matter was due for hearing before the Supreme Court on Friday.
Published Dec 09, 2025 | 4:51 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 09, 2025 | 4:51 PM
Tiruppanarankundram in Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
Synopsis: A notice has been issued to Madurai City Deputy Commissioner of Police A.G. Inigo Thivyan, asking him to explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against him. The Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary and the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) have been directed to appear via video conference on December 17.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday, 9 December, began hearing a contempt petition alleging that government officials failed to make the necessary arrangements to light the traditional Karthigai Deepam atop the Thirupparankundram hill.
The case came up before Justice G.R. Swaminathan.
A notice has been issued to Madurai City Deputy Commissioner of Police A.G. Inigo Thivyan, asking him to explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against him. The Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary and the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) have been directed to appear via video conference on December 17.
According to Livelaw, the court also impleaded the Home Secretary in the petition.
During the hearing, the State sought more time, informing the court that a related matter was due for hearing before the Supreme Court on Friday.
However, the petitioner’s counsel strongly opposed the request, arguing that the State had failed to implement not only the earlier High Court order, but also the directions issued in the contempt proceedings.
They pointed out that the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed against the single-judge order had already been dismissed, leaving no interim stay in force. “How can the government avoid compliance when no interim order is operating?” the counsel asked.
The State countered that the petitioner was making “irresponsible submissions”. The government further noted that the case was also listed before the Madurai Bench on Friday and claimed the four-day window for lighting the Deepam had already passed.
Justice Swaminathan observed that the issue was not merely about the right to light the Deepam but also involved questions of property rights. The government argued that courts cannot dictate temple customs, adding that decisions on temple rituals must rest solely with the Devasthanam administration. “This is laid out in several detailed orders,” the State submitted.
The judge agreed to adjourn the matter based on the State’s request but warned that further adjournments would not be granted if the government failed to secure an interim order by the next hearing.
At one point, the petitioner’s counsel remarked that the government should not “come here begging” without implementing the court’s order, prompting objections from the State to the use of the word “begging”.
The petitioner’s counsel further criticised the widespread media discussions and data-sharing related to the case, calling them unnecessary. They also asserted that “nothing will happen even on Friday” and alleged that the State had no intention of carrying out the order.
The State argued that the appeal pending before the Division Bench concerns whether a single judge was right in directing that the matter not be discussed elsewhere until the case concludes. “There is no urgency,” the State submitted.
The petitioner insisted that interim relief could have been sought during the pendency of the appeal and said delays of this nature undermine public faith in the judicial system. The State responded that issues such as availability of wicks, oil, and access to the hill were not the real concerns—“law and order is the major issue,” they said—arguing that it was reasonable to wait until the appeal is decided.
When the State claimed it still had sufficient time, the petitioner countered: “If that is so, you could have allowed the Deepam lighting to proceed and waited patiently.”
On 1 December, a Single Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan of the high court had observed that the temple was duty-bound to light the lamp at Deepathoon, besides lighting near the Uchchipillaiyar Mandapam. The court also added that the lighting of the lamp would not encroach upon the rights of the Dargah or the Muslim community.
The judge passed another order on 3 December after the earlier directive was not implemented. Justice Swaminathan directed the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), deployed at the court, to ensure the protection of the devotees.
However, the police prevented the bid, citing prohibitory orders promulgated considering the law and order situation.
