Madurai Collector Defends Prohibitory Orders as Law & Order Measure, Not Court Defiance
In a significant development before the Madras High Court, Madurai district collector K J Praveen Kumar has clarified that prohibitory orders promulgated in Thiruparankundram town on December 3, 2025, were implemented solely to preserve law and order, and not to defy the court's directive regarding the lighting of the Karthigai deepam atop Thiruparankundram hill.
Contempt Proceedings and Official Responses
The collector filed a counter-affidavit in response to contempt of court proceedings initiated against him and three other officials: Madurai city commissioner of police J Loganathan, executive officer of Subramaniya Swamy Temple Yagna Narayanan, and deputy commissioner of police (Madurai south) A G Inigo Divyan. All four officers appeared personally before the court on Monday to address the allegations.
Senior counsel representing the authorities presented a detailed explanation, stating that a substantial gathering of people from Hindu outfits began assembling at Thiruparankundram on December 3, 2025. Faced with this escalating situation, the collector acted on multiple intelligence inputs and issued prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS to prevent potential unrest and maintain public safety.
Unconditional Apologies and Ground Realities
The counsel emphasized that the prohibitory orders were not intended as an act of disobedience against the court's order. In their affidavits, all officers tendered unconditional apologies, acknowledging the court's authority while explaining their actions were driven by immediate ground realities.
Analyzing the affidavits submitted by the officials, the senior counsel highlighted that the tone and content demonstrated no malicious intent to defy judicial orders. Instead, the measures were taken as a necessary response to the large crowd that had gathered at the location, requiring immediate intervention to ensure peace and order.
Judicial Scrutiny and Proceedings
Earlier, Justice G R Swaminathan expressed serious concern over the officials' conduct, questioning how the collector could issue prohibitory orders that appeared to frustrate the court's directive. The judge orally indicated that he might proceed with contempt proceedings specifically against the collector.
When the senior counsel requested additional time for the collector to file an explanatory affidavit, Justice Swaminathan granted the extension and separated the contempt proceedings against the collector from those involving the other officials. The judge subsequently dispensed with the personal appearance of all officers except the collector and scheduled the next hearing for March 2.
Previous Court Observations and Context
During earlier hearings, the court had warned that charges would be framed against the officials if they failed to provide satisfactory reasons for not complying with the directive to light the deepam at the deepathoon on Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai district.
Justice Swaminathan also referenced a news report from a magazine quoting a police officer who allegedly stated readiness to face consequences. The state government countered this claim, asserting that no official would make such a statement, further complicating the legal narrative surrounding this sensitive matter.
