Court Cases & Legal News.

Madras High Court Upholds Order for Lighting Karthigai Deepam at Historic Site, Dismisses Authorities' Appeal

In a significant ruling emphasizing the supremacy of judicial orders over executive actions in protecting religious rights, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the District Collector and Commissioner of Police of Madurai. The decision, delivered by Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran, reinforces the enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution amid a long-standing dispute over a traditional Hindu ritual.

Case Background

The dispute centers on the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam—a traditional festival of lights celebrated during the full moon in the Tamil month of Karthigai—at the ancient Deepa Thoon (Stone Lamp Pillar) atop Thirupparankundram Hill. This site, near the 1,200-year-old Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, has been at the heart of contention due to its proximity (at least 15 meters) to the nearby Sikkandar Darga, a Muslim shrine.

Petitioner Rama.Ravikumar approached the court via Writ Petition (MD) No. 32317 of 2025, seeking directions to the temple's Executive Officer to light the Deepam at Deepa Thoon, in line with a 1996 High Court order (W.P. No. 18884 of 1994). The temple authorities rejected his request, citing potential law and order issues and historical discontinuance of the practice for over a century due to past invasions. The single judge, in an order dated December 1, 2025, allowed the writ petition, directing the temple management to light the Deepam at Deepa Thoon alongside usual sites, with police ensuring compliance. The order explicitly noted that this would not affect the Darga's rights and highlighted past peace committee resolutions supporting the practice.

When the temple failed to comply by the scheduled time of 6:00 p.m. on December 3, 2025—the full moon day—Ravikumar filed a contempt petition (Cont.P. (MD) No. 3594 of 2025). The single judge permitted Ravikumar and nine others to light the Deepam themselves, escorted by CISF personnel from the High Court campus, after confirming non-compliance.

Arguments from Both Sides

The appellants—District Collector and Commissioner of Police—challenged the single judge's contempt order through L.P.A. (MD) No. 8 of 2025, arguing several procedural lapses:

• The contempt petition was filed in "anticipation" of breach, without affording a hearing.
• The temple, as an aggrieved party, had filed an intra-court appeal, yet was forced into compliance.
• Permitting private individuals (writ petitioners) to light the lamp deviated from the original order directing temple authorities, violating precedents like Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran (2014) 3 SCC 373 and Amit Kumar Das v. Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust (2024) 11 SCC 679.
• Directing CISF—meant for High Court security—for external enforcement was judicial overreach, undermining state police.
• A subsequent executive order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS, equivalent to old Section 144 Cr.P.C.) prohibited hill access from 6:00 p.m. on December 3, 2025, to prevent unrest, claiming precedence over the judicial directive.

Ravikumar's counsel countered that the authorities willfully disobeyed the court, undermining Article 226 powers and citizens' religious freedoms. They argued the executive order was manipulative, issued post-judicial directive and excluding religious ceremonies, yet used to block compliance. The state machinery's failure necessitated CISF assistance, as local police refused protection.

Legal Precedents and Principles Applied

The Division Bench distinguished the case from cited Supreme Court judgments, noting the contempt order did not modify the writ but provided an alternative enforcement mechanism when the temple defaulted—shifting responsibility to petitioners without altering the core directive. It emphasized that judicial orders under Article 226 supersede executive actions, even under Section 163 BNSS, especially when the latter carves exceptions for religious assemblies.

Key excerpts from the judgment underscore the reasoning:

> "The sum and substance of the dispute is regarding the right of worship, which is guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, besides the constitutional duty of the State machinery to implement the order of the Court."

> "When the Court found that the relief sought earlier not been implemented to serve purpose of the order, the learned Single Judge has permitted the petitioners to light the lamp... This is neither altering the order nor modifying the order, but only changing the person who was supposed to discharge the responsibility."

The court also critiqued the appellants' appeal as a "preemptive" move to evade contempt, refusing to preempt the single judge's findings on willfulness.

Court's Decision and Implications

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on December 3, 2025, upholding the single judge's orders. The bench clarified no illegality in deploying CISF for enforcement when state forces fail constitutional duties, preserving court majesty.

This ruling has broader implications for religious disputes in shared sacred spaces, affirming courts' role in reviving discontinued customs without infringing minority rights. It signals zero tolerance for executive overrides of judicial mandates, potentially influencing similar cases involving festivals like Karthigai Deepam across Tamil Nadu. The temple and Darga's historical agreements, referenced since 1994-2005, further bolster communal harmony in such matters.

No costs were imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.