Show cause or face contempt, Madras High Court warns officials over Deepam row

“Unless proper cause is shown, charges will be framed against the contemnors on 02.02.2026,” the bench said.

“Even though the contemnors had sufficient opportunity, they have not shown cause till date as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them,” it added.

Expressing displeasure, Justice Swaminathan observed that the officers had been granted four weeks to respond but had failed to show cause for their decision not to comply with the court’s order. (File photo)

What transpired in court

Taking note of the submissions of the district magistrate as well as the deputy commissioner of police that they “acted on their own” and “not under dictation”, the court scheduled the matter for February 2.

When the matter was taken up, the court asked Veera Kathiravan, the Additional Advocate General whether the affidavits had been filed.

The AAG replied that they would be filed on the next hearing date, citing difficulties due to the hospitalisation of the AAG appearing for the district collector.

Expressing displeasure, the court observed that the officers had been granted four weeks to respond but had failed to show cause for their decision not to comply with the court’s order.

The judge remarked that three distinct acts of contempt were involved: first, disobedience of the original court order; second, issuance of a prohibitory order under Section 144 of the CrPC; and third, resistance to implementation of the court’s order even after the prohibitory order was quashed.

Section 144 of the CrPC empowers an executive magistrate to issue orders prohibiting assemblies of four or more people, restricting movement, or banning weapons in urgent situations of public nuisance, danger, or disturbance of peace.

Criticising the conduct of the officials, Justice Swaminathan said he could not overlook the district collector issuing a prohibitory order to frustrate the court’s directions, nor the continued resistance to implementation even after that order was set aside.

The court also questioned the executive officer (EO) of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple at Thiruparankundram over the failure to lodge a police complaint against the dargah management for allegedly trespassing into Devasthanam land to hoist a flag for the dargah’s Santhanakoodu festival.

The court sought an explanation as to how the temple management had allowed the dargah to put up its flag in the Deepathoon area, which a recent division bench order had categorically declared to be temple property.

During the hearing, the EO admitted that the dargah had not obtained any permission from the temple authorities before hoisting the flag.

He further informed the court that a complaint for criminal trespass would be lodged before the jurisdictional police.

Recording this submission, the court noted that the division bench on January 6 had declared the Deepathoon area on the lower peak of the hill as belonging to the temple, but that the dargah authorities had nonetheless tied the Pallivasal flag to a tree there in connection with the Sandhanakoodu festival.

The EO conceded that the act amounted to “rank criminal trespass” and undertook to immediately initiate criminal proceedings.

Background

The court was hearing a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with its order dated December 1, which had directed the temple authorities to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) atop the Thiruparankundram hills.

Earlier last month, the court had summoned senior police and revenue officials and issued notice to the state for allegedly disregarding its directions on the grounds of policing and public safety concerns arising from large gatherings.

On December 17, 2025, the court had directed the chief secretary to file detailed affidavits, taking a responsible stand and explaining the reasons for non-compliance.