Karthigai Deepam Row| ‘Law and Order Is Not a Fig Leaf’: Madras HC Warns Tamil Nadu Officials in Contempt Case

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan at the Madras High Court, Madurai, on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, took strong exception to what it described as a growing tendency among state authorities to cite “law and order” concerns as a justification for not implementing binding judicial orders, warning that such conduct strikes at the very foundation of constitutional governance.

Hearing two contempt petitions arising out of alleged non-compliance with its December 1 orders, Justice G.R. Swaminathan summoned the top administrative and police leadership of Tamil Nadu and made it clear that executive inconvenience or apprehensions could not override the authority of the court.

The chief secretary of Tamil Nadu and the additional director general of police (law and order) appeared before the court through video conferencing.

The contempt petitions were filed by Rama.Ravikumar and S.Paramasivam alleging wilful disobedience of the court’s earlier directions by the Madurai district administration and police authorities. Court had also suo motu impleaded senior officials, including the chief secretary and the union home secretary, signalling the seriousness with which it viewed the issue.

At the heart of the court’s concern was the repeated invocation of law and order as a reason for not enforcing judicial directions. Justice Swaminathan questioned the chief secretary on whether recent prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, had been issued independently by district collectors or pursuant to instructions from higher authorities.

To underline the systemic nature of the problem, the judge referred to another matter pending before him relating to an illegal church construction in Alamarathupatti village of Dindigul district. In that case, despite an injunction granted by the court in October 2025, construction activities allegedly continued, with local officials reporting that enforcement was difficult due to resistance on the ground and possible law and order issues.

Justice Swaminathan noted that the authorities themselves had acknowledged the construction to be illegal, yet had failed to act until the aggrieved party was forced to approach the court. Even after the court intervened, the order was not implemented, and worship activities reportedly continued at the site.

Expressing frustration, the judge observed that he was increasingly being compelled to initiate contempt proceedings against officers for non-compliance. He strongly criticised the stance articulated on behalf of the state that law and order considerations could justify delay or inaction in executing court orders.

"I am tired. In how many cases, am I to haul up the officers concerned for contempt?" the judge said.

“When a court has issued an order, unless it has been stayed or set aside by a higher forum, it has to be obeyed,” the court said, adding that while there may be rare situations where implementation is genuinely impossible, law and order concerns cannot be treated as a blanket excuse. Justice Swaminathan warned that allowing such a position would effectively legitimise defiance of judicial authority.

Court went on to observe that treating law and order as a “fig leaf” to avoid implementing judicial directions would itself amount to a breakdown of law and order and could lead to paralysis of the constitutional machinery. Such an approach, the judge cautioned, undermines the rule of law and erodes public confidence in the justice delivery system.

Notably, a division bench of the high court is currently seized of the appeals filed against the order of December 1 passed by Justice Swaminathan.

The matter has now been adjourned to January 9, 2026. Justice Swaminathan made it clear that he expects the chief secretary to take a “responsible stand” when the matter is taken up again. Importantly, the court directed that the contemnors’ personal appearance would continue and was not dispensed with.

Case Title: Rama.Ravikumar and Anr vs. K.J.Praveenkumar IAS and Others

Order Date: December 17, 2025

Bench: Justice GR Swaminathan