'Sad Day For Rule Of Law’: Madras HC Summons Officials For Denying Permission To Hindu Festival In Majority Christian Village In Violation Of Order

The High Court was hearing a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of its earlier order allowing the festival to take place at the petition-mentioned site. The said order had been issued by the Court sitting in writ jurisdiction, noting that the rights of the Christian community would not be affected in any manner.

A Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed that the refusal to comply with the Court’s order and issuance of prohibitory proceedings by the District Collector amounted to prima facie contempt. While making these observations, the Bench remarked: “I had passed the order sitting in Single Bench. So long as my order is not stayed or set aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has to be complied with in letter and spirit. The Executive cannot sit in judgment over the order I had passed. The District Collector does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over me. He cannot and he dare not pass an order which would have the effect of nullifying my order. When I use the words “I” or “my”, they are not to be taken in any personal sense. I am only referring to this august institution”.

Senior Advocate KPS Palanivel Rajan appeared for the petitioner, and the State was represented by the Additional Advocate General Ajmal Khan.

Background

The petitioner had previously approached the High Court in seeking permission to celebrate the Karthigai Deepam festival at Mandu Kovil, situated in the immediate vicinity of Kaliamman Temple. The revenue records, including the FMB sketch, indicated the existence of the Mandu Kovil and a “Peedam” at the site.

While allowing the writ petition, the Court had permitted clearing of bushes and held that celebrations for a few hours would not prejudice the Christian community, further directing police protection to ensure exercise of the devotees’ rights under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Despite the order being issued and communicated, the District Collector passed proceedings prohibiting the entry of outsiders and gatherings at the site, citing law-and-order concerns. The petitioner, therefore, initiated contempt proceedings against the District Collector and police officials.

Court’s Observations

The Madras High Court, upon hearing the matter, held that the judicial order remained binding until stayed or set aside by a higher Bench, and that no authority could act in a manner that would have the effect of "nullifying” the Court’s direction. 

The Court stated that neither the District Collector nor the Superintendent of Police could contend that they were not parties to the writ proceedings, observing that even a third party may be liable for contempt if they obstruct the enforcement of a judicial order.

Invoking Article 25, the Court reiterated that public order concerns cannot be cited as justification to curtail legitimate religious rights, noting that “those who create trouble must be put down” and not the citizens exercising their lawful entitlements.

Referring to judicial precedents, the Court stressed that disobedience of orders strikes at the “very foundation of the rule of law” and undermines public confidence in the Judiciary. The Bench emphasised that the administration exists to uphold constitutional guarantees and cannot assert appellate authority over judicial directives.

Specifically referring to a previous judgment of the Madras High Court, the Bench further reiterated: “The Constitution fastens on all authorities a non-negotiable obligation to enforce orders of the court, and the authorities who are bound to comply with the orders have no discretion whether or not to abide by the decision of the Court, whatever be the reasons for the same. The High Court is the highest Court in the State. The Constitution confers on the High Court vast powers to ensure that the constitutional guarantee of justice to all is truly fulfilled. This depends on the respectful and faithful obedience of its commands by the executive”.

Conclusion

Noting that the prohibitory orders amounted to contempt of Court orders and “a gross breach of the fundamental rights of the individual Hindus of Perumalkovilpatti”, the High Court directed the District Collector, Dindigul and the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, to appear in person to explain why they had defied the Court’s order.

The Court stated that the final determination of contempt would depend on the explanation provided by the concerned officers.

Cause Title: V. Sithan Balraj v. A. Saravanan and Others

Appearances

Petitioner: KPS. Palanivel Rajan, Senior Advocate

Respondents: Ajmal Khan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by S.S. Madhavan, Additional Advocate General; S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor

Click here to read/download Judgment