Madras High Court Asks Subramania Swamy Temple Trustees To Decide On Allowing Symbolic Prayers At Deepathoon Hillock Within 2 Weeks

The Court was hearing a batch of contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience of earlier orders passed in writ proceedings concerning the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon.

A Single Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed: “The appearance of the trustees is dispensed with for the present. But the police officials named in the order dated 02.03.2026shall remain present on the next hearing date. Call these cases on 18.03.2026 at 04.00 pm. I categorically warn all the contemnors that if an appropriate response is not received by 18.03.2026, charges will be framed on the said date, and the enquiry will be taken up on a day-to-day basis. I do not believe in adjournment culture, and the proceedings will conclude one way or the other before the month's end. Let me remind you that if reckless comments are made by dignitaries, they also will be roped in. Before the law, all are one, and no one can claim immunity merely because they happen to hold high offices”.

Background

The proceedings arise out of writ petitions relating to the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon located on the Thirupparankundram hillock.

The contempt petitions were filed alleging wilful disobedience of the High Court’s earlier orders dated 01.12.2025, 03.12.2025, 04.12.2025, and 09.12.2025.

The contemnors named in the proceedings include K.J. Praveenkumar IAS, District Collector, Madurai; J. Loganathan IPS, Commissioner of Police, Madurai City; Yagna Narayanan, Executive Officer of the temple; and other officials, including police authorities and government officers.

The earlier order dated 01.12.2025 had directed the temple management to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon in addition to the usual locations. The issue subsequently led to further proceedings and allegations that the authorities had failed to implement the Court’s directions.

When the matters were earlier listed on 02.03.2026, the District Collector filed an additional affidavit stating that a prohibitory order issued on 03.12.2025 had been passed only to facilitate implementation of the Court’s order.

At that stage, the Court observed that the sincerity of this explanation would be evident if at least five persons nominated by the Court were permitted to visit the lower peak of the hillock where the Deepathoon is located and offer symbolic prayers. The Court suggested that the authorities consider this proposal and respond.

Court’s Observation

When the matters were taken up again, Senior Counsel R. Shanmugasundaram, appearing for the temple trustees, submitted that the trustees would need to obtain approval from the concerned department before deciding on the Court’s suggestion and sought two weeks for deliberation.

During the hearing, Senior Counsel Vikas Singh, appearing for the police officials, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the contempt proceedings. He argued that the order passed by the Single Judge on 01.12.2025 had been challenged before a Division Bench in writ appeals and that, in view of the doctrine of merger, the contempt proceedings could be maintained only before the Division Bench and not before the Single Judge.

The Court rejected this objection. Justice Swaminathan referred to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in United Labour Federation v. Gagandeep Singh Bedy (2026 INSC 204), which held that contempt jurisdiction is independent of the doctrine of merger.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court had clarified that when the higher court merely affirms the order of the High Court without issuing fresh directions, the High Court’s order continues to exist independently for the purpose of invoking contempt jurisdiction.

Justice Swaminathan observed that the earlier Madras High Court decision cited by the respondents could no longer be treated as good law in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Court also referred to a Full Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Sailesh Kumar v. Smitha R., which had similarly held that when a Single Bench order is affirmed by an appellate court, contempt proceedings for violation of that order would lie before the Single Bench.

The Court further noted that the Division Bench, while hearing the writ appeals against the order dated 01.12.2025, had in fact confirmed the direction that the Devasthanam must light the lamp at the Deepathoon. Therefore, the Single Judge’s order had not been reversed or modified.

The Court also observed that the contempt proceedings related not only to the order dated 01.12.2025, but also to subsequent orders dated 03.12.2025 and 04.12.2025. It noted that a prohibitory order had been issued by the authorities and later quashed, yet the police authorities allegedly continued to resist implementation of the Court’s directions.

Justice Swaminathan remarked that the Court was considering impleading the temple trustees as contemnors and framing charges against certain police officials, including J. Loganathan, Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, and A.G. Inigo Divyan, Deputy Commissioner of Police (South), Madurai City.

However, in view of the request made by senior counsel representing the respondents to grant time for deliberation on the Court’s proposal regarding symbolic prayers, the Court decided to grant two weeks.

Conclusion

The Court adjourned the proceedings for two weeks and directed that the police officials named in the earlier order dated 02.03.2026 remain present on the next hearing date.

The Court listed the matters for further hearing on 18 March 2026, warning that if an appropriate response was not received by that date, charges would be framed and the enquiry would proceed on a day-to-day basis until completion.

Cause Title: Rama Ravikumar v. K.J. Praveenkumar IAS, District Collector, Madurai & Ors.

Appearances

Petitioners: Senior Advocates G. Karthikeyan & K.P.S. Palanivelrajan, Advocate Niranjan S. Kumar

Respondents: Senior Advocates N.R. Elango, Vikas Singh & R. Shanmugasundaram, K. Govindarajan, DSGI, Veerakathiravan, Additional Advocate General, J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General, C. Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader, S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor

Click here to read/download Judgment