In the ongoing temple lighting lamp case, Justice G R Swaminathan questioned the temple management on how they could permit the Dargah to hoist a flag at the Deepathoon area in the Tirupparankundram Swaminathan Temple, which was declared as temple land by a recent order of the Division Bench.
The Judge said, “The primary order passed by this Court was upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 06.01.2026. The Division Bench was pleased to declare that the Deepathoon area, which is on the lower peak of the hill, belongs to the temple. But in connection with the Sandhanakoodu festival, the Dargah authorities tied the flag of the Pallivasal to a tree in the Deepathoon area. Yagna Narayanan, the Executive Officer, states that permission from the temple authorities was not obtained before doing so. He concedes that what was committed by the Dargah officials amounts to rank criminal trespass. Since the property of the temple was unauthorisedly trespassed upon by the Dargah officials, he stated that he would lodge a complaint immediately before the jurisdictional police. He undertook to comply with all necessary formalities to launch proper criminal prosecution in this regard. This statement was made in the presence of counsel Chandrasekar.”
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, while hearing contempt petitions related to the Tirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam issue on January 9, came down heavily on the contemnors, stating that “ample time had been given, yet they had not shown cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. Unless proper cause is shown, charges will be framed against them on February 2.”
The contemnors — K.J. Praveenkumar, District Collector; J. Loganathan, Commissioner of Police, Madurai City; Yagna Narayanan, Executive Officer; and A.G. Inigo Divyan, DCP (South), Madurai City — were present before the Court.
The Tamil Nadu government informed the Court that Letters Patent Appeals had been filed against the contempt proceedings and were yet to be taken up by the Division Bench, and sought time. The Court took on record the affidavit filed by Chief Secretary N. Muruganandam. The Collector and the DCP informed the Court that they had acted entirely on their own and not under any direction.
The Judge observed, “The contempt petitions were listed on more than one occasion in the first week of December 2025. They were again listed on 17.12.2025. 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. The learned Additional Advocate General informs the Court that LPAs have been filed against the contempt proceedings and are yet to be taken up by the Hon’ble Division Bench. He prays for further time.”
The single Judge further stated, “This Court, vide order dated 01.12.2025, allowed W.P.(MD) No. 32317 of 2025 and batch for lighting the Karthigai Deepam atop the Tirupparankundram hill at the Deepathoon. This order was not obeyed by the temple authorities. To frustrate the judicial order, Praveenkumar passed a prohibitory order under Section 163 of BNSS, 2023. Even though this prohibitory order was quashed by this Court, Inigo Divyan, Deputy Commissioner of Police, obstructed the implementation of the Court’s order. Unless proper cause is shown, charges will be framed against the contemnors on 02.02.2026.”
Justice Swaminathan said that on December 1, 2025, the Court had allowed lighting of the Karthigai Deepam atop the Tirupparankundram hill at the Deepathoon, but the order was not obeyed by the temple authorities. To make matters worse, the District Magistrate passed prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, 2023. Though this prohibitory order was quashed by the Court, Inigo Divyan obstructed the implementation of the Court order.
The Court noted, “The District Magistrate as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Police informed the Court that they acted entirely on their own and not under dictation. Call on 02.02.2026.”
The Judge posed a volley of questions: “Will you obey the Court order or not? Did HR&CE Minister P.K. Sekar Babu tell you not to implement Court orders? Do the Madurai Kallathi trees belong to the temple or the Dargah? Why was no complaint preferred against the Dargah management for hoisting the flag on temple premises (on the Kallathi tree)?”
சேகர்பாபு சொன்னாரா ?#Thiruparankundram #sekarbabu #NewsUpdate #TamilJanam pic.twitter.com/35KCZZym7A
— Tamil Janam (@TamilJanamNews) January 9, 2026
The Judge further remarked, “First, there was disobedience of the first order of the Court. Second, issuance of prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC. Third, even after knowing that the prohibitory order was quashed, the officers had the audacity to resist its implementation. I would not pardon two officials — the District Magistrate, who issued the Section 144 prohibitory orders despite the Court directing lighting of the lamp at the Deepathoon, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Inigo Divyan, who did not implement the Court orders. Till date, they have not shown any remorse. They were given three weeks’ time. The Court took on record the officers’ submission that they were acting on their own and not under any dictation.”
#NEWSUPDATE || 144 தடை உத்தரவு – இருவரை மன்னிக்க முடியாது: ஜி.ஆர்.சுவாமிநாதன் | #Thiruparankundram | #MaduraiCollector | #GRSwaminathan | #PolimerNews pic.twitter.com/UnLBKtdnks
— Polimer News (@polimernews) January 9, 2026
Earlier, the Court had also summoned senior police and revenue officials and issued notice to the State for allegedly disregarding Court directions by citing policing and public safety concerns over large gatherings. On December 17, the Court had directed the Chief Secretary to file a detailed affidavit.
