Divine Light and Judicial Might: Madras High Court Upholds Worship Rights Amidst Administrative Standoff

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has delivered a scathing rebuke to state authorities, reaffirming the judiciary's power to intervene when executive inaction threatens the constitutional rights of citizens. In a landmark decision, a division bench comprising Dr. G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ., dismissed an appeal by the Madurai District Collector and Police Commissioner , effectively upholding a directive that permits the lighting of the traditional Karthigai Deepam at the historic ‘Deepa Thoon’ (Stone Lamp Pillar) atop the Thirupparankundram hill.

A Century of Contention: The Spark for Conflict

The dispute centers on a centuries-old practice: the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the ancient Deepa Thoon. Despite a 1996 High Court order recognizing the right, the practice had been dormant for decades. When petitioner Rama Ravikumar sought to revive the tradition, his request was rejected by the Temple Executive Officer . A single judge of the High Court eventually granted permission, emphasizing that the pillar is located at a significant distance from the nearby Sikkandar Darga, ensuring that religious sentiments of all communities would remain uncompromised.

The Battle of Authority: Executive vs. Judiciary

What followed was a legal and administrative collision. When the state failed to facilitate the lighting of the lamp, the petitioner filed a contempt petition. The state argued that the contempt action was "premature" and maintained that an executive order promulgated under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS )—the equivalent of Section 144 CrPC —took precedence, effectively prohibiting access to the hilltop.

The Division Bench did not mince words. Justice G. Jayachandran observed that the state’s attempt to use the prohibitory order as a shield against a court directive appeared highly suspect. "It is very obvious that Section 163 BNSS order is passed prior to the judicial order or the records are manipulated," the court noted, questioning the hurried nature of the administrative maneuver.

When the Local Police Falter, Can the Court Step In?

A major point of contention was the High Court ’s decision to authorize the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to protect the devotees after the state police failed to comply with the judicial order. The government argued this was "judicial overreach." The Court disagreed, positing that if the state machinery willfully refuses to uphold the constitutionally protected rights of citizens, it is the Court’s duty to ensure its orders are executed.

"In case the State machinery disobey the Court order and refuse to give protection, the Court cannot stand helpless. It has to take assistance from any quarters," the Bench ruled.

Key Observations

The judgment provides significant clarity on the limits of administrative discretion:

• On the duty to obey: "The State, which has constitutional duty to protect the constitution and discharge the duty in accordance with the constitution, has miserably failed... by deliberate disobedience of the judicial order passed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution ."
• On the nature of the Order: "The situation has arisen in which the State Police unable to carry the constitution mandate. There is no illegality in taking the assistance of central force for the said purpose, if the circumstances warrant."
• On the preservation of rights: "Just because the practice discontinued for the past 100 years... cannot take away the prevailing right of the worshipers of Thiruparankundram hillock."

Ensuring the Light Reaches the Hilltop

The High Court ’s dismissal of the appeal is a firm signal that judicial orders are not mere suggestions to be bypassed by executive procrastination. By affirming that the rights granted under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution —the freedom to practice one’s religion—cannot be sidelined by administrative hurdles, the Court has reinforced its role as a protector of fundamental liberties. For now, the lamp at the Deepa Thoon stands not just as a symbol of faith, but as a bastion of judicial authority.