Tirupparankundram row | No illegality in judge taking assistance of Central forces in Deepathoon case, says HC

Dismissing a State appeal against a single judge’s order permitting litigants to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (pillar) atop the Tirupparankundram hill, a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday (December 4, 2025) held that there was no illegality in the judge asking the CISF personnel to accompany the litigant.

“The Single Judge, having found that the State machinery wilfully decided not to implement the direction, citing pendency of the unnumbered appeal, sought the assistance of the CISF for enforcing the directions. A situation has arisen in which the State police is unable to carry out the Constitutional mandate. There is no illegality in taking the assistance of the Central force for the purpose, if the circumstances warrant it,” the Bench said.

Hearing the appeal filed by Madurai Collector K.J. Praveen Kumar and Police Commissioner J. Loganathan, Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan said the sum and substance of the dispute is regarding the right of worship, which is guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, besides the Constitutional duty of the State machinery to implement the order of the court.

“In this case, the order passed by the Single Judge was not complied with by the temple authorities. When that was brought to the notice of the Single Judge, an alternative relief was granted so that the order will have a purposeful meaning. Even that order was not complied with by the appellants,” the court said.

The Bench said it appeared that, to defeat the order, the Collector had invoked the executive power conferred on him under Section 163 of BNSS. “Showing the prohibitory order, the Police Commissioner refused entry to the petitioners to reach the hilltop. The order was passed by the Collector, pursuant to the communication by the Police Commissioner…we find that there is a specific indication that the prohibitory order shall not apply for any assembly or procession on the occasion of a religious ceremony,” the judges said.

From the sequence of events, the court held that the appellants, fearing action over the contemptuous act, had come to the court through the Letter Patent Appeal as a pre-emptive step.

“We are clear in our mind that the subsequent order in the contempt petition passed on December 3 is not an order modifying the earlier order passed on December 1, and it is not beyond the four corners of the main writ petition. When the Court found that the relief sought earlier had not been implemented to serve the purpose of the order, the Single Judge permitted the petitioners to light the lamp at the Deepathoon,” the Bench held.