Allow Lighting Of Lamp In Thiruparankundram Hills Today Itself: Madras High Court Directs State, Quashes Prohibitory Order

The Madras High Court has quashed the prohibitory order issued by the Madurai District Collector under Section 144 CrPC(Section 163 BNSS) in the Thiruparakundram region, following the clashes that broke out while implementing a court order passed yesterday, allowing devotees to go to the temple and light lamps at the stone pillar.

Justice GR Swaminathan quashed the order, observing that the same was promulgated only to circumvent the implementation of the court order. The court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Madurai city to give police protection to the devotees allowing them to light the lamps at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) situated at the lower hilltop on the Thiruparankundram hills.

"Well settled that constitutional court's order can be set aside only in manner known to law. As long as it's standing, it has to be obeyed by all officers. Since the S.144 proceedings was only for not implementing this court's order, I quash it," the court said.

For context, the single judge had initially (on December 1, 2025) ordered the management of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light the lamp at 6pm on December 3rd. A contempt petition was then moved by the Petitioner on December 03, alleging that no arrangements had been made to comply with the order. The judge then permitted the petitioner-devotee, along with 10 more persons, to light the lamp themselves. It also asked the CISF to give protection to the Petitioners.

The situation, however, turned volatile when the petitioner devotees approached the area to light the lamps. The collector imposed a prohibitory order, and the Commissioner of Police, in view of the prohibitory order refused to allow lighting of the lamp. 

A letter patent appeal was also moved by the State, challenging the single judge's yesterday's order. This appeal was, however, rejected by a division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan earlier today, who held that there was no illegality in the single judge's order.

Following this, when the contempt petition came up for hearing before Justice Swaminathan, he took strict view of the continued absence by the officers and directed them to appear before the court via video conferencing. When the officers appeared, the judge questioned them over non non-implementation of the court order.

J Loganathan IPS, the Commissioner informed the court that he had the highest regard for the court order, and the devotees were not permitted only considering the prohibitory order passed by the District collector. 

The court, unsatisfied with the explanation, quashed the prohibitory order and asked the officers to give protection to light the lamp today. 

The court also remarked that a constitutional court's order could be set aside only in the manner known to law and that the officers were bound to comply it as long as it wasn't stayed or set aside. The court also remarked that the Police Commissioner seemed to have seen himself above the High Court judges and ended up not complying with the order.

"I had specifically mandated commissioner to accord police protection so that order is complied in letter and spirit. The Commissioner may think he is superior in ranking than a High Court judge," the court commented.

The court has decided to take up the case at 10:30 am on 5th December (Friday) to ensure compliance.

Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others

Case No: CONT P(MD) No.3594 of 2025 

Click Here To Read/Download The Order