![\"\"](\"https:\/\/organiser.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/madras-high-court-on-kartika-deepam.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, on the December 17, came down heavily on senior Tamil Nadu government officials during contempt proceedings linked to the Thiruparankundram Karthigai Deepam issue, asking the Chief Secretary whether the repeated disobedience of court directions was occurring \u201cunder instructions.\u201d<\/p>\n
Justice G. R. Swaminathan was hearing the contempt pleas filed by Rama Ravikumar and S. Paramasivam, alleging continued non-compliance with court orders permitting the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam atop the Thiruparankundram hill. He directed the Chief Secretary to file a \u201cresponsible\u201d reply addressing the concern at the next hearing. The Court expressed displeasure that the authorities continued to cite \u201claw and order\u201d issues to justify their stance, despite earlier orders and the quashing of prohibitory directions.<\/p>\n
In his seven-page order, the Judge, while issuing a common order, said: \u201cThe Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, as well as the Additional Director General of Police (L&O), State of Tamil Nadu, appeared before this Court through video conferencing.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Court said: \u201cThe Chief Secretary was called upon to clarify as to whether the District Collectors of Madurai and Dindigul passed prohibitory orders under Section 163 of BNSS, 2023, entirely on their own or on instructions. The attention of the Chief Secretary was drawn to yet another instance (WP(MD) No. 29790 of 2025). In the said case also, citing law and order issues, the revenue authorities failed to proceed against an illegal church construction in Alamarathupatti Village, Aathoor Taluk, Dindigul District. One Wilson had filed the said writ petition against his brother, alleging that, in an undivided family property, a church was being constructed without obtaining prior approval from the District Collector, Dindigul. The injunction order granted by me on 24.10.2025 in WMP(MD) No. 23044 of 2025 was not complied with. Hence, Wilson filed Cont P(MD) No. 3630 of 2025. The matter stands posted for compliance tomorrow (18.12.2025). But the Tahsildar, Aathoor, has submitted a report stating that implementation of the injunction order is meeting with resistance on the ground and, therefore, because of law and order issues, they are unable to enforce the Court\u2019s order.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Judge said: \u201cAdmittedly, the construction of the church is illegal. The authorities, on their own, should have taken action. They did not do so. That is why the aggrieved brother had to approach this Court. An injunction was granted by me, but the construction continued to proceed. The place is being used for congregational worship. That is why I directed the local authorities to take immediate action. But the authorities appear to be afraid to even touch the building. One has to draw an adverse conclusion as to why the authorities are hesitant. Law and order appears to be a convenient fig leaf.\u201d<\/p>\n
Adding further, Justice Swaminathan said: \u201cI am tired. In how many cases am I to haul up the officers concerned for contempt? Even today, the Chief Secretary, who was reading out from a prepared text, stated that even though they have high regard for the judiciary, they have to take into account law and order issues while implementing the Court\u2019s orders. This is unacceptable. When a court has issued an order, unless it has been stayed or set aside by a higher forum, it has to be obeyed. Of course, there could be cases where a judicial order cannot be implemented. I can conceive of such situations. But law and order cannot be a ground for flouting a court\u2019s order. That would be inexcusable. That would amount to a breakdown of law and order. That would lead to paralysis of the constitutional machinery.\u201d<\/p>\n
Concluding his verdict, he said: \u201cThe case stands adjourned to 09.01.2026. I expect the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to take a responsible stand even while answering the question posed at the outset. The contemnors are present in person. Their further appearance is not dispensed with.\u201d<\/p>\n
Credit : Organiser Weekly<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, on the December 17, came down heavily on senior Tamil Nadu government officials during contempt proceedings linked to the Thiruparankundram Karthigai Deepam issue, asking the Chief Secretary whether the repeated disobedience of court directions was occurring \u201cunder instructions.\u201d Justice G. R. Swaminathan was hearing the contempt pleas …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[136],"tags":[31238],"class_list":["post-56786","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","","category-national","tag-karthigai-deepam"],"yoast_head":"\n