Madras HC Summons Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary and ADGP Over Repeated Defiance of Court Orders on Deepam Issue [Read Order]

Chennai: The Madras High Court has summoned the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu and the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) to appear before it through video conference, observing a “definite pattern” of brazen defiance of court orders by district-level officials in multiple cases involving religious disputes, particularly concerning the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at sacred sites.

Justice G.R. Swaminathan passed the order while hearing a contempt petition filed by Rama Ravikumar against the District Collector of Madurai, the Commissioner of Police of Madurai City, and the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, for wilful disobedience of the court’s order permitting the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at a site known as Deepathoon.

The controversy arose from an order dated December 1, 2025, by which the Court directed the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple Devasthanam at Thirupparankundram, Madurai, to light Karthigai Deepam at the petition-mentioned site known as Deepathoon from that year onwards. The jurisdictional police were tasked with ensuring compliance.

When it became evident that the order would not be enforced, a contempt petition was filed on December 3, 2025. The matter was listed at 6:05 PM with a direction that the Deepam be lit at 6:00 PM at Deepathoon. As the temple management made it clear that they would not abide by the court’s order, the writ petitioner was permitted to go up the hill and light the lamp. CISF personnel attached to the Madurai Bench were directed to escort the petitioner and provide protection.

However, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, along with the police force assembled at the temple, physically stopped the writ petitioner and his associates from carrying out the court’s order. The police took the stand that, in view of a prohibitory order dated December 3, 2025, issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the District Magistrate-cum-District Collector, Madurai, the court’s order could not be enforced.

The matter was taken up on December 4, 2025. The Court viewed the promulgation of the prohibitory order as an act of overreach. After referring to constitutional provisions and judicial precedents, the prohibitory order was quashed. The petitioner was once again permitted to go up the hill and light the lamp at Deepathoon along with associates. The direction was reiterated, with modification, after the Division Bench dismissed the State’s appeal against the contempt order.

Yet again, the order was not complied with. Instead of the Commissioner of Police appearing, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madurai South, appeared and made it clear that he would not permit the petitioners to go up the hill. This led to a sub-application being filed to implead him as a contemnor, which was allowed.

The contempt petition was listed on December 5, 2025. It was submitted that writ appeals had been filed against the primary order and that a Special Leave Petition had been filed before the Supreme Court. Recording these submissions, the Court adjourned the matter to December 9, 2025, and sought a report from the CISF Commandant who had accompanied the writ petitioner.

On December 9, 2025, the Deputy Commandant of CISF submitted a report stating that the Police Commissioner, accompanied by over 200 police personnel, prevented the CISF contingent from proceeding further. One reason cited was that the court’s order did not bear the judge’s signature. Another ground taken was the existence of the earlier prohibitory order.

The Court observed that while the police could claim shelter under the prohibitory order on December 3, 2025, they had no defence whatsoever on December 4, 2025, after the prohibitory order had been quashed and the order was dictated in the presence of the Police Commissioner.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., which held that interim orders must be obeyed while in force, and violation thereof can be punished even if the question of jurisdiction is later decided.

Senior counsel for the contemnors urged the Court to refrain from proceeding further as writ appeals were likely to be taken up on December 12, 2025. Rejecting the submission, the Court noted that no interim stay had been granted and that the order continued to operate. The Court also recalled that an earlier appeal had already been dismissed by the Division Bench.

Justice Swaminathan observed that similar instances of defiance had occurred in other districts. In a case from Kanyakumari District concerning removal of a Murugan statue from Mayiladum Parai, the administration refused to restore status quo ante. In another case from Perumalkovilpatti village in Dindigul District, prohibitory orders were issued to frustrate directions permitting the celebration of Karthigai Deepam.

The Court observed:

“I notice a definite pattern. I am certain that officials at the district level would not dare to so brazenly defy the orders of this Court.”

The Judge reminded officials that their duty is to enforce the law and not to act on oral dictates. While administrative orders must ordinarily be complied with, this obligation does not extend to illegal directions.

While noting that breach of court orders was undisputed, the Court held that contempt would arise only if such breach was wilful. Given the recurring nature of the issue across districts, the Court found it necessary to summon senior-most State officials.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, and the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai, to appear through video conference on December 17, 2025, at 3:00 PM, to clarify whether any circular or instructions would be issued to guide district-level officers.

The Court also allowed the impleadment of the Union Home Secretary as the fourth respondent and directed the Deputy Solicitor General of India to take notice on his behalf. The Court indicated that, based on the submissions of the Chief Secretary and ADGP, it may seek inputs from the Union Home Secretary.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on December 17, 2025.

Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. K.J. Praveenkumar, IAS & Ors.
*[Contempt Petition (MD) No. 3594 of 2025 in W.P. (MD) No. 32317 of 2025]

[Read Order]