Thiruparankundram Hill Row: Madras High Court Asks Why No Trespass Complaint Filed Against Dargah For Hoisting Flag On Temple Property

The Madras High Court, on Friday, asked the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Subramania Swamy temple in Thiruparankundram why a complaint was not lodged against the dargah management for trespassing into the property belonging to the Devasthanam, purportedly for hoisting a flag in connection with the Dargah's santhanakoodu festival.Justice GR Swaminathan questioned the temple management on how they could permit the Dargah to hoist the flag at the deepathoon area, which was declared as temple land by the recent order of the division bench. The EO conceded that no permission had been obtained by the Dargah for hoisting the flag. He also informed the Court that he would lodge a complaint for trespass before the jurisdictional police. Following which the Court observed,"The Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to declare that the Deepathoon area that is on the lower peak of the hill belongs to the temple. But in connection with the Sandhanakoodu festival, the Dargha authorities tied the flag of the Pallivasal in the tree in the Deepathoon area. Thiru.Yagna Narayanan, the Executive Officer states that the permission of the temple authorities was not obtained before doing so. He concedes that what was committed by the Dargha officials was a rank criminal trespass. Since the property of the temple was unauthorisedly trespassed upon by the Dargha officials, he stated that he would lodge a complaint immediately before the jurisdictional police. He undertook to comply with all the necessary formalities to launch a proper criminal prosecution in this regard. This statement was made in the presence of the counsel Thiru.Chandrasekar."The judge was hearing a contempt petition over non-compliance of his order dated 1st December, where the court had directed the temple authorities to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) atop the Thiruparankundram hills. Earlier, the court had also summoned senior police and revenue officials and issued a notice to the State for allegedly disregarding the directions by citing policing and public safety concerns over large gatherings.On December 17, the court had directed the Chief Secretary to file detailed affidavits, by taking a responsible stand, explaining the reasons for non-compliance of the order. When the matter was taken up today, the court asked the Additional Advocate General if the affidavits had been filed. The counsel informed the court that the affidavits would be filed on the next hearing date as there was some difficulty due to the hospitalisation of the AAG representing the District Collector. The court frowned upon the stand taken by the state and said that the officers had been given 4 weeks for giving their replies. The court said that it had given a chance to the officers to show cause on why they decided not to comply with the court order, but the officers had not shown their cause. The court also remarked that there were three types of contempt involved in the present case. First, the disobedience of the first order of the court. Second, the issuance of prohibitory order under Section 144 CrPC, and third, even after knowing that the prohibitory order was quashed the officers had the audacity to resist its implementation. Criticising the conduct of the officers, the judge said that he could not forgive the District Collector issuing a prohibitory order for frustrating the court's order and the officer resisting the implementation of the order even after quashing the prohibitory order. The court said that the officers, till date, had not shown any remorse. The court took on record the officer's submission that they were acting on their own and not under any dictation. The court further said that it would frame charges against the officers for contempt and adjourned the case to February 2nd. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Senior Counsel Mr.KPS.Palanivelrajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.RM.Arun SwaminathanCounsel for Respondents: Mr.Veera.Kathiravan Addl. Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.S.Ravi, Addl. Public Prosecutor Pleader Mr.V.ChandrasekarCase Title: Rama Ravikumar and Another v. KJ Praveen Kumar IAS and OthersCase No: CONT P(MD) Nos.3594 & 3657 of 2025 in W.P.(MD)Nos.32317 & 33197 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Thiruparankundram Hill Row: Madras High Court Asks Why No Trespass Complaint Filed Against Dargah For Hoisting Flag On Temple Property

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Thiruparankundram Hill Row: Madras High Court Asks Why No Trespass Complaint Filed Against Dargah For Hoisting Flag On Temple Property

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers