Madras HC Pulls Up Tamil Nadu Officials for Defying Court Orders, Says Law and Order Cannot Justify Non-Compliance [Read Order]

Chennai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has come down heavily on senior Tamil Nadu officials for repeatedly disobeying court orders, holding that law and order issues cannot be used as a “convenient fig leaf” to avoid implementing judicial directives. The Court emphasised that once a court issues an order, unless it is stayed or set aside by a higher forum, it must be obeyed.

Justice G.R. Swaminathan made the strong observations on December 17, 2025, while hearing two contempt petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, arising from writ petitions relating to the Thiruparankundram temple issue and other instances of non-compliance.

The contempt petitions were filed by Rama Ravikumar and S. Paramasivam against the District Collector of Madurai, the Commissioner of Police of Madurai City, the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple at Thirupparankundram, the Union Home Secretary, and other officials, alleging wilful disobedience of orders passed by the Court on December 1, 2025.

During the proceedings, the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu and the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) appeared before the Court through video conferencing. The Chief Secretary was called upon to clarify whether the District Collectors of Madurai and Dindigul had passed prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, 2023, independently or on instructions.

The Court also drew attention to another instance in WP(MD) No. 29790 of 2025, where, citing law and order issues, revenue authorities had failed to proceed against an illegal church construction in Alamarathupatti Village, Aathoor Taluk, Dindigul District. In that case, one Wilson had filed a writ petition against his brother, alleging that a church was being constructed on undivided family property without prior approval from the District Collector. An injunction granted by the Court on October 24, 2025, was not complied with, prompting Wilson to file a contempt petition. The Tahsildar of Aathoor submitted a report stating that implementation of the injunction order was meeting resistance on the ground and that, owing to law and order issues, the authorities were unable to enforce the Court’s order.

Justice Swaminathan observed that the construction of the church was admittedly illegal and that the authorities ought to have taken action on their own. Instead, the aggrieved brother was compelled to approach the Court. Even after the injunction was granted, the construction continued and the premises were being used for congregational worship. Despite the Court’s directions to take immediate action, the authorities appeared hesitant to even touch the building. The Court noted that an adverse inference had to be drawn as to why the authorities were reluctant to act, and that law and order appeared to be a convenient fig leaf.

Expressing his frustration, Justice Swaminathan remarked, “I am tired. In how many cases am I to haul up the officers concerned for contempt?” The Court noted that even during the hearing, the Chief Secretary, while reading from a prepared text, stated that although the government had high regard for the judiciary, it had to take law and order issues into account while implementing court orders.

The Court found this stance unacceptable, reiterating emphatically that when a court issues an order, unless it is stayed or set aside by a higher forum, it must be obeyed. Justice Swaminathan acknowledged that there may be rare situations where a judicial order cannot be implemented; however, he made it clear that law and order cannot be cited as a ground for flouting a court’s order, as doing so would be inexcusable.

The Court further observed that using law and order as an excuse for non-compliance would itself amount to a breakdown of law and order and lead to paralysis of the constitutional machinery. This observation underscored the fundamental principle that selective enforcement of court orders based on anticipated law and order concerns undermines the rule of law and judicial authority.

The matter was adjourned to January 9, 2026, at 4:00 PM. The Court stated that it expected the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to take a responsible stand while answering the question posed at the outset regarding whether the prohibitory orders were passed on instructions. The contemnors, who were present in person, were directed to continue their appearance, which was not dispensed with.

Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. K.J. Praveenkumar IAS & Ors. and S. Paramasivam v. K.J. Praveenkumar IAS & Ors., Cont. P(MD) Nos. 3594 & 3657 of 2025 in W.P.(MD) Nos. 32317 & 33197 of 2025.

[Read Order]