Madurai, Dec 4
The Tamil Nadu government has defended its actions before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, arguing that Justice Swaminathan had exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering that Karthigai Deepam be lit at the hilltop lamp post on Thiruparankundram Hill and directing the deployment of CISF personnel for security.
The controversy began after a petition was filed seeking permission to light the traditional Karthigai Deepam at the lamp post on the hill, which is one of the six barrack areas at Thiruparankundram.
Acting on the plea, the judge directed that the Maha Deepam be lit at the hilltop and asked the temple administration to make arrangements. Although preliminary preparations were made on Wednesday morning, the temple authorities abruptly cancelled the arrangements.
The withdrawal triggered protests by Hindu Makkal Katchi, Akhila Bharath Hanuman Sena, South India Forward Bloc, and other organisations, who marched demanding that the lamp be lit at the lamp post, as requested by the petitioner. However, following temple tradition, the Deepam was lit at 6 p.m. near the Uchchipillaiyar Temple on the hilltop, not at the lamp post. Unsatisfied, the petitioner and others urged that the Deepam be lit at the lamp post with CISF protection.
Justice Swaminathan issued an order permitting them to proceed to the spot with security personnel.
The order led to tense scenes on Wednesday evening. BJP cadres and Hindu outfit members raised slogans near the 16-foot hall and attempted to scale the hill after breaking barricades. Police intervened, resulting in clashes in which two policemen sustained injuries.
Considering the escalating situation, District Collector Praveen Kumar imposed Section 144 prohibitory orders in the area. Several protesters were arrested for violating the restrictions. Some groups later lit camphor on the pathway and performed rituals before dispersing.
The state government immediately approached the Administrative Judge of the Madurai Bench, Justice Jayachandran, seeking to suspend and overturn the single judge’s order.
The Additional Chief Public Prosecutor argued that the judge had no authority to deploy CISF, which is assigned only for the security of the High Court premises, not for maintaining public order.
The state further submitted that the order directly affected communal harmony and law and order in Thiruparankundram. Simultaneously, the Collector moved another petition seeking a stay on the contempt plea filed by the original petitioner.
Both matters were taken up as the first cases of the day by Justices Jayachandran and Ramakrishnan. The state argued that action against the temple administration could not be taken without hearing them, and that contempt proceedings cannot lead to immediate punishment on the same day of filing.
It urged the court to quash the single judge’s directives, stating that they were beyond judicial authority and had aggravated tensions in the region.
