Thirupparankundram Hill Deepam Contempt Case: District Magistrate & Deputy Commissioner Tell HC That They Acted On Their Own And Not Under Dictation From Higher Ups
The Temple official conceded that Dargha officials trespassed into Temple property to tie the flag on a tree near Deepathoon.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has held that it would frame charges against the Officials if proper cause is not shown for disobeying its order passed on December 1, 2025, permitting the lighting of lamp at the Thiruparankundram hill. The High Court also took note of the Executive Officer’s submission that the permission of the temple authorities was not obtained before the Dargha authorities tied the flag in the Deepathoon area.
The Court noted in its order that the District Magistrate as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Police haveinformed the Court that they acted entirely on their own and not under dictation.
The High Court was considering a contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the Contemnors/Respondents for the willful disobedience of the order passed by the Court on December 1, 2025.
The Single Bench of Justice G.R.Swaminathan held, “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.”
Senior Counsel G. Karthikeyan represented the Petitioner while Addl. Advocate General Veera Kathiravan represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Court vide its order dated December 1, 2025, allowed the petition for lighting the Karthigai Deepam atop the Thirupparankundram hill at the Deepathoon. The temple authorities did not obey this order. To frustrate the judicial order, IAS Praveen Kumar passed a prohibitory order under Section 163 of BNSS, 2023. Even though this prohibitory order was quashed by the Court, the Deputy Commissioner of Police obstructed the implementation of the Court’s order. The primary order passed by the Court was upheld, and the Division Bench declared that the Deepathoon area, which is on the lower peak of the hill, belongs to the temple. However, in connection with the Sandhanakoodu festival, the Dargha authorities tied the flag of the Pallivasal in the tree in the Deepathoon area.
Reasoning
Considering that judicial orders had been frustrated and the contemnors had not shown cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them, the Bench ordered that charges would be framed against them on February 2, 2026, if proper cause is not shown.
The Bench took note of the Executive Officer’s submission that the permission of the temple authorities was not obtained before the tying of the flag by the Dargha authorities. Since the property of the temple was unauthorisedly trespassed upon by the Dargha officials, the Officer stated that he would lodge a complaint immediately with the jurisdictional police.
“Call on 02.02.2026”, the Bench ordered.
Cause Title: Rama.Ravikumar v. K.J.Praveenkumar IAS (Case No.: CONT P(MD) Nos.3594 & 3657 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Counsel G.Karthikeyan, Senior Counsel KPS.Palanivelrajan, Advocate RM.Arun Swaminathan
Respondent: Addl. Advocate General Veera Kathiravan, Addl. Public Prosecutor Pleader S.Ravi, Advocate V.Chandrasekar