In a charged hearing at the Madurai Bench on Thursday afternoon, the Division Bench firmly dismissed a challenge filed by the Madurai District Collector and the City Police Commissioner, who sought to stop the court-ordered lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the ancient Deepa Thoon atop the Thiruparankundram hill. Their appeal, which came within hours of alleged non-compliance with the earlier Single Judge order, was rejected with sharp judicial remarks questioning the State’s conduct.
Background
The dispute began when petitioner Rama Ravikumar approached the Court seeking enforcement of a 1996 order that recognised the traditional right to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp at the stone pillar known as Deepa Thoon-about 15 meters from the Sikkandar Dargah. The Temple Executive Officer had refused permission, prompting fresh litigation.
On 1 December 2025, a Single Judge directed the temple authorities to light the Deepam at Deepa Thoon along with other traditional spots. The Judge observed that a past peace-committee resolution showed even the Dargah management had “no objection” to the ritual being performed beyond 15 metres from their premises.
However, on 3 December, just before the ceremonial sunset hour, the petitioner informed the Court that no arrangements were made at the spot, even as the clock approached 6 p.m. This led to an urgent contempt hearing. The Single Judge ultimately allowed the petitioner to light the lamp with ten others and sought CISF security after the police allegedly failed to guarantee protection.
Court’s Observations
During Thursday’s appeal hearing, the Bench appeared unconvinced by the appellants’ arguments that the contempt petition was “premature” and that the Single Judge had supposedly overreached by directing CISF deployment.
“The State cannot say it will ignore a judicial order simply because an appeal may be filed,” the Bench remarked at one point, noting that the Temple had thirty days to appeal but such future intention could not justify blocking the ritual.
The Bench also scrutinised the Section 163 BNSS prohibitory order issued by the Collector at around the same time the Deepam was to be lit. According to records, the order barred anyone from climbing the hill from 6 p.m. onwards, citing possible unrest. But the judges pointed out that the same order explicitly exempted religious ceremonies. “How can an executive order prevail over a judicial directive under Article 226?” the Bench asked, hinting at possible manipulation of records.
On the controversy around CISF deployment, the Court sounded sympathetic to the Single Judge’s stance. “When the State police refuse to comply with or protect a court-mandated activity, the Court cannot stand helpless,” the Bench observed. The judges noted that CISF is available to the High Court and could be requested when immediate enforcement is necessary.
The Bench also said the Single Judge did not modify the earlier order; rather, he changed only who would light the lamp after the temple authorities failed to act. “This is neither alteration nor expansion of the original order,” the Court held.
Decision
Ultimately, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, calling it a “pre-emptive step” taken by the officials fearing contempt action. The judgment concluded that whether their non-compliance was wilful must be determined by the Single Judge in contempt proceedings. With that, the appeal and connected petitions were closed.
Case Title: K.J. Praveenkumar & Another vs. Rama Ravikumar & Another
Case No.: L.P.A. (MD) No. 8 of 2025
Case Type: Letters Patent Appeal (LPA)
Decision Date: 04 December 2025