Madras High Court: While hearing contempt petitions regarding the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon, a Single Judge Bench of G.R. Swaminathan, J., held that contempt jurisdiction operates independently of the doctrine of merger. Rejecting the preliminary objection on maintainability, the Court noted that its order dated 1 December 2025 directing the temple management to light the lamp at Deepathoon was expressly confirmed by the Division Bench on 6 January 2026 without modification or reversal. The Court further observed that subsequent orders dated 3 December 2025 and 4 December 2025 were also resisted by the + police despite quashing of prohibitory orders and therefore concluded that the contempt petitions were clearly maintainable.
Background
The matter arose from directions issued on 1 December 2025 requiring the temple management to light the Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon. Despite subsequent prohibitory orders being quashed, the police force resisted implementation of the Court’s order.
The contemnors argued that the order of the Single Judge had merged with the Division Bench’s order in writ appeals, invoking the doctrine of merger. They contended that only the Division Bench could entertain contempt petitions.
On the other hand, the petitioners submitted that the contemnors had deliberately disobeyed the Court’s orders dated 1 December 2025, 3 December 2025, and 4 December 2025, and that contempt jurisdiction squarely lay before the Single Judge whose directions had been violated.
Analysis and Decision
The Court emphasised that reliance on All India Union Bank Officer Staff Assn. v. Brajeshwar Sharma, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 17972, was no longer good law. The Court highlighted that the doctrine of merger will not apply when the order passed by the Single Judge is confirmed by the Division Bench. The Court further referred to Sailesh Kumar v. Smitha R., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1152, wherein it was observed that in case of an affirmation of an order of the Single Bench, the contempt would lie before the Single Bench when it is alleged that his order or direction has been violated.
The Court highlighted that the order dated 1 December 2025 directed the temple management/devasthanam to light the Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon also, apart from the usual places. The Court noted that the Division Bench, vide its order dated 6 January 2026, directed that the Devasthanam must light the lamp at the Deepathoon. Thus, the order passed by the Court was confirmed, as there was no modification or reversal. Hence, the Court rejected the preliminary objection raised as to the maintainability of the contempt petitions before it.
The Court emphasised that the contempt petitions related not only to the violation of the order dated 1 December 2025 but also to the orders dated 3 December 2025 and 4 December 2025. It was observed that, to frustrate the order passed by the Court, a prohibitory order was issued. However, the prohibitory order was quashed in the presence of the police, yet the police force of Madurai City, headed by the Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police South, and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, resisted implementation of the order of the Court. Therefore, the Court held that these contempt petitions are maintainable.
Finally, the Court warned that if appropriate responses were not received by the next hearing date, i.e., 18 March 2026, charges would be framed and an enquiry would be taken up on a day-to-day basis. The Court thus concluded that before the law all are equal and no one can claim immunity merely because they happen to hold high offices and adjourned the proceedings by two more weeks.
[Rama. Ravikumar v. Collector, Cont P(MD) Nos.3594 & 3657 of 2025, decided on 4-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: G. Karthikeyan, Senior Counsel for RM. Arun Swaminathan
For the Respondent: N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel, assisted by C. Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader for Vikas Singh, Senior Counsel, for S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor, J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General, V. Chandrasekar, K. Govindarajan, DSGI