State Police Unable To Carry Constitutional Mandate: Madras HC Dismisses State's Appeal Against Contempt Order For Lighting Deepam At Thirupparankundram Hill
The High Court held that the appellants approached the Division Bench solely to prevent contempt proceedings, directing that the question of adjudicating wilful disobedience remains within the jurisdiction of the Single Judge.
The Madras High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State through the District Collector of Madurai and the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, against orders passed by a Single Judge allowing the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the Deepa Thoon located on the Thiruparankundram hill by the Petitioner with CISF protection.
The Court was hearing an intra-court appeal challenging directions issued in a contempt petition concerning the enforcement of an earlier writ order directing the temple authorities to light the lamp at the designated location.
A Division Bench comprising Dr Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, observed: “From the sequence of events, we hold that the appellants herein fearing action for it contempatious act has come before this Court through this Letter Patent Appeal as premptive steps. It is well designed act of the appellant, who has admittedly not complied the order of the learned single Judge, dated 03.12.2025, had approached this Court to preempt contempt action. It is for the learned single Judge to test whether their noncompliance of the order dated 03.12.2025 is wilful or not. We cannot jump into conclusion in the apeal about their conduct in appeal”.
"The learned Single Judge havng found that the State machinery willfully decided not to implement the direction citing pendency of the unnumbered appeal, called upon the assistance of CISF for enforcing the directions. The situation has arisen in which the State Police unable to carry the constitution mandate. There is no illegality in taking the assistance of central force for the said purpose, if the circumstances warrant", the Court held.
Additional Advocates General J. Ravindran and Veera Kathiravan represented the state, while Advocate M.R. Venkatesh and V. Chandrasekar appeared for the petitioner and the temple authorities, respectively.
The Court noted that the Additional Advocate General made certain "vituperative remarks about the learned Single Judge" during the hearing. But the Court condoned the remarks since the Additional Advocate General withdrew the same.
Background
The Single Judge, on 01.12.2025, directed the temple authorities to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Stone Pillar (Deepa Thoon) in addition to the usual place, noting earlier judicial recognition of that right and the absence of any demonstrated prejudice from doing so.
On 03.12.2025, when no arrangements were made by evening to comply with the direction, the writ petitioner approached the Single Judge with a contempt petition pointing out the impending breach. After confirming non-compliance, permission was granted to the writ petitioner to light the lamp, with CISF assistance for protection.
Challenging the contempt-related order, the District Collector and Police Commissioner filed the present Letters Patent Appeal, asserting that the appeal against the writ order had been filed and that the Single Judge could not compel compliance in the interim.
Court’s Observation
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court took note of the sequence of events establishing the appellant-states’ conscious non-compliance with the directions of the Single Judge. It held that the decision to approach the Division Bench was not prompted by any legitimate grievance, but by a desire to insulate themselves from contempt.
The Court, upon examining the record, noted that the order passed in contempt did not modify the earlier writ order. Rather, since the temple authorities failed to act, the writ petitioner was permitted to carry out the same direction originally imposed on the temple. This, the Bench held, did not transgress the bounds of the original writ relief.
Addressing the argument on the use of CISF personnel, the Bench noted that the direction arose only because the State police machinery declined to enforce the Court’s order. In those circumstances, the Bench remarked that obtaining assistance from CISF was not illegal, particularly when judicial directions were required to be upheld.
The Bench also examined the prohibitory order passed under Section 163 of the BNSS Act by the District Collector on the same day, observing that the records raised serious doubts as to whether the executive order was issued before the Court’s direction or inserted later. The Court also noted that the file indicated that such a prohibition would not apply to a religious ceremony, thereby undermining the justification for preventing the petitioner from reaching the hilltop.
The Court rejected allegations that the Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction, holding that any determination of wilfulness in disobedience of Court orders would still lie solely with the Single Judge in contempt jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The Division Bench concluded that the appeal was filed as a pre-emptive attempt to obstruct contempt proceedings and avoid scrutiny of non-compliance, while reiterating that the Single Judge alone must decide whether the conduct of the appellants amounted to wilful disobedience.
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, and the connected application was closed.
Cause Title: K.J. Praveenkumar, I.A.S. & Another v. Rama Ravikumar & Another
Appearances
Appellants: J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General (Coordination), Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by P. Thilakkumar, Government Pleader
Respondents: Advocates M.R. Venkatesh, V. Chandrasekar
