Sign In
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Madurai: A division bench of the Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench today concluded a heated hearing into the Tamil Nadu government’s appeal against orders passed by a single judge in the volatile Thiruparankundram Karthigai Deepam dispute. Justices Jayachandran and Ramakrishnan, after hearing extensive arguments from the state and other parties, reserved their final order, which is expected to be delivered later today.
The appeal challenges the judicial actions of Justice G.R. Swaminathan, whose directives earlier this week led to dramatic scenes, including the deployment of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel to escort a petitioner to light a ceremonial lamp on a contested hilltop near a dargah.
TN Govt Alleges Judicial Overreach, Blames Court Order for Thiruparankundram Clashes
Arguing for the state government, Additional Advocate General Ravindran mounted a robust legal challenge, accusing the single judge of judicial overreach and directly contributing to a law-and-order crisis. The counsel asserted that the judiciary lacks the executive authority to enforce its own orders in such a manner and that the deployment of state machinery remains the government’s sole domain.
A central point of contention was Justice Swaminathan’s decision to involve CISF personnel. The government lawyer argued that the CISF is deployed exclusively for court security and cannot be commandeered to protect a private petitioner enforcing a civil order. He further contended that the judge had prematurely arrived at a finding of contempt of court without following due process.
The state’s argument painted the judge’s order as the catalyst for the subsequent violence. The counsel stated that prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the CrPC were imposed by the district collector precisely to prevent a communal riot. However, the petitioner, armed with the court’s directive, gathered a crowd and created the exact law-and-order breakdown the administration had sought to avert. The government insisted that contempt proceedings should instead be initiated against the petitioner for these actions.
“The barricades were broken, guards were attacked, and a situation of religious conflict arose. The fears of the Tamil Nadu government came true,” the government lawyer submitted, adding that the single judge’s orders had effectively undermined the executive’s constitutional duty to maintain peace.
The division bench engaged actively with these arguments, posing sharp questions about the limits of judicial power. The judges specifically sought clarity on the authority under which CISF could be deployed for such a purpose. “What authority do we have to send CISF soldiers for security?” they asked, probing whether the local police had explicitly refused to provide protection, thus forcing the judge’s hand.
Thiruparankundram Karthigai Deepam Case: Madras HC Reserves Order After Heated Hearing
In their interim observations, the two-judge bench offered significant insights into their perspective. They noted that the Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Temple administration had made “no effort” to implement Justice Swaminathan’s original permission to light the lamp at the hilltop deepasthambam. This failure, they suggested, was the direct reason for the judge’s unusual subsequent orders.
The bench also took pains to clarify that Justice Swaminathan’s actions were not punitive. “Judge Swaminathan did not punish anyone,” they stated, explaining that the order involving the CISF was a consequential measure due to non-compliance, not a sentence. Furthermore, they reflected on the nature of communal harmony, remarking, “Religious harmony does not mean preventing someone from doing anything. On the contrary, harmony is when both parties work together and encourage each other’s work.”
The court’s impending ruling is highly anticipated, as it will not only decide the immediate fate of the single judge’s orders but also potentially delineate the boundaries between judicial directives and executive authority in sensitive matters of faith and public order.
