Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday summoned the Dindigul Collector S. Saravanan and Superintendent of Police A. Pradeep to appear before him in a contempt of court case.
The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by a litigant V. Sithan Balraj, who had sought permission to conduct Karthigai Dheepam festival at the Mandu Kovil which is in the immediate vicinity of Kaliamman temple at Perumal Kovilpatti in Dindigul District. On December 2, the court had permitted the conduct of the event.
The Dindigul Collector, however, issued prohibitory orders under Section 163(1) of BNSS. The State submitted that a volatile situation prevailed on the ground warranting clamping of prohibitory orders.
Justice Swaminathan, however, said in the village in question, Christians are in majority and Hindus are in minority and all that the Hindu community wanted is to be allowed to celebrate Karthigai Deepam in a place recognised as Mandu Kovil in the revenue record itself. There is also a ‘Peedam’ in the said site.
The judge had earlier said by permitting the Hindu community to celebrate the event for a few hours on December 3 and December 4, the rights of the Christian community will not in any way be affected. This is all the more so because the Christian community has no claim over the said site. The right of any Hindu of Perumal Kovilpatti to offer worship and celebrate the religious festival is definitely a fundamental right recognised by Article 25 of the Constitution.
Disapproving of the Collector’s action, the judge on Wednesday said, “The order of the court was not only not complied with but brazenly defied.”
He added, “The Executive cannot sit in judgment over the court order. The District Collector does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over the court order. The Collector cannot and dare not pass an order which would have the effect of nullifying the court order, the court observed.”
The Collector and SP cannot take the frivolous plea that they were not parties to the petition and hence, the court order will not bind them. “By passing the [prohibtory] order, the Dindigul Collector has prima facie committed contempt. The District Collector has forbidden the usual religious celebrations even. Nothing can be a grosser breach of the fundamental rights of the individual Hindus of Perumal Kovilpatti,” the judge said.
Acknowledging that Article 25 of the Constitution opens with the clause ‘subject to public order’, the judge said the expression should be understood appropriately. “It is quite possible that there are customs that are inherently immoral and which may pose a threat to public order by themselves. Public order or law and order or public tranquility cannot be used as a figleaf to stifle the legitimate rights of the citizens. The police exist to uphold rights. Those who create trouble must be put down. If the administration and the police prevent persons from exercising their legitimate rights on the ground that it would give rise to law and order issues, that would be a confession of impotence,” he said.
After summoning the two officers to appear at 3.15 p.m, the judge issued statutory notice and posted the matter for hearing to December 4.
“It is a sad day for the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and a sadder day for the Rule of Law,” Justice Swaminathan observed.
Published – December 04, 2025 02:31 am IST
