Whereas listening to a contempt petition regarding lighting of lamps at stone pillar in Thiruparakundram hills, the Madras Excessive Courtroom (Madurai bench) on Tuesday (December 9) directed the state’s Chief Secretary and Extra Director Common of Police (L&O) to seem earlier than the court docket subsequent week.
Justice GR Swaminathan was listening to a contempt petition towards non-compliance of its earlier order allowing lighting of lamps on the stone pillar in Thiruparakundram area.
After listening to the matter for a while, the court docket directed the looks of Chief Secretary and Extra Director Common of Police (L&O)on December 17 and additional impleaded the House Secretary within the petition.
Throughout the listening to earlier right this moment the court docket was knowledgeable by Extra Advocate Common Veera Kathiravan showing for the State, that the court docket’s division bench is to listen to appeals towards lighting of lamp on December 12. He additional mentioned that an SLP filed by Tamil Nadu authorities difficult the Madras Excessive Courtroom order relating to the lighting of the lamp within the Thiruparankundram hills can also be pending earlier than the Supreme Courtroom.
The Counsel for Petitioner mentioned that the authorities try to tug the case with out complying with the court docket’s order. He mentioned that the division bench had not given interim reduction and thus the only choose’s order nonetheless stands.
In the meantime Senior Advocate Vikas Singh showing for the police commissioner mentioned the SLPs weren’t pursued as a result of the excessive court docket’s division bench had agreed to listen to the case. He mentioned that the authorities didn’t need to pursue a number of litigations
Singh mentioned, “Courtroom cannot ask temple to do one thing at a specific place simply because the devotee needs it. Finally court docket has to resolve the legislation. Implementation is with the chief. If government feels that there is legislation & order drawback, it is for them to resolve“.
At this stage the court docket orally mentioned, “Take it from me. At your request I am adjourning the case. I am going to put up it on Monday. If you do not get any interim reduction, I am going to pursue the matter“.
Nonetheless the respondent counsels urged court docket to put up the case after every week including that the division bench listening to will go on for greater than a day since a battery of attorneys are arguing. This was opposed by the petitioners’ counsel including that, “Giving leverage like this can ship the incorrect sign to society. Individuals will lose religion within the judiciary”.
Extra Advocate Common J Ravindran mentioned that it was not as if the authorities didn’t need to adjust to the court docket’s order deliberately.
Senior Adv Jothi showing for the respondents mentioned, “Issues could be achieved solely with peace“. To this the petitioner’s counsel mentioned, “This persistence and magnanimity has brought on us so much for 1000 years”.
In the meantime the court docket orally mentioned, “In case you would’ve atleast gotten the SLP numbered, I’d’ve merely adjourned“. To this senior advocate Vikas Singh submitted that the one cause it was not pursued was as a result of the excessive court docket’s division bench agreed to listen to the appeals. The court docket then mentioned that it’ll contemplate the request and move orders at 3pm.
Whereas listening to the contempt plea, on December 4 the court docket had quashed the prohibitory order issued by the Madurai District Collector beneath Part 144 CrPC (Part 163 BNSS) within the Thiruparakundram area, following the clashes that broke out whereas implementing the court docket’s order permitting devotees to go to the temple and lightweight lamps on the stone pillar.
For context, the single choose had initially (on December 1, 2025) ordered the administration of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to mild the lamp at 6pm on December third. A contempt petition was then moved by the Petitioner on December 03, alleging that no preparations had been made to adjust to the order. The choose then permitted the petitioner-devotee, together with 10 extra individuals, to mild the lamp themselves. It additionally requested the CISF to protect the Petitioners.
The matter is subsequent listed on December 17.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others
Case No: CONT P(MD) No.3594 of 2025
Leave a Reply