The Madras High Court on Friday delivered a strong message while dealing with appeals linked to the Thiruparankundram lamp lighting controversy. The division bench, presided over by Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan, made it clear that the judiciary would not tolerate attempts to provoke, degrade, or demoralise judges. Their remarks came at a time when the judicial institution is at the centre of a heated public debate triggered by conflicting views over the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp at the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple.
Background of the Lamp Lighting Dispute
The controversy began with a single-judge order directing the temple management to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp at 6 pm on December 3. Several appeals were filed challenging this decision, prompting the division bench to take up the matter. The court has scheduled the consolidated hearing of all appeals for December 12.
On Friday, when the appeals came up for hearing, Advocate MR Venkatesh informed the bench that personal and caste-based attacks were being made online and offline against the single judge who issued the initial order. This revelation set the stage for a series of sharp observations from the bench concerning the dignity and independence of the judiciary.
Court’s Strong Remarks on Protecting Judicial Integrity
Responding to the reports of caste-based targeting of the single judge, the bench delivered a stern warning. The judges stated that individuals cannot exploit the fact that judges cannot respond publicly, nor should they assume that their actions will go unnoticed.
The bench remarked:
- “Persons should not keep provoking the court.”
- “Please instruct your clients not to test the patience of the court and degrade the judiciary.”
The court emphasised that such behaviour not only disrespects the judicial process but threatens the rule of law.
Judiciary Cannot Be Demoralised, Says Bench
In a sharp message, the judges warned that any attempt to demoralise the judiciary would invite strict legal consequences. They highlighted that the judiciary stands as a crucial pillar of the Constitution and cannot be undermined by political, social, or personal motivations.
One of the strongest remarks from the bench noted:
“Whether you are in power or not, whether you have a tongue or not — if you are going to demoralise the institution, the Constitution will remain only on paper.”
This statement reflects the court’s concern that aggressive targeting of judges could erode public trust and weaken democratic institutions.
Court Alerts That Limits Cannot Be Crossed
The bench reiterated that the judiciary is the last resort for every citizen, and attacking the institution only harms the legal system on which society depends. It reminded litigants and the public that in a democracy governed by law, no individual has the right to degrade judicial officers or challenge their authority through personal attacks.
The judges warned that if the boundaries of responsible conduct are crossed, “strict action” would follow. This signals the possibility of contempt proceedings should such behaviour continue.
Case to Be Heard on December 12; Court Maintains Neutrality
While making these strong remarks, the bench also clarified that the appeals would be examined on their merits on December 12. The court maintained its focus on the legal questions surrounding the lamp lighting order and ensured that its observations regarding personal attacks would not influence its judicial reasoning in the main matter.
The bench’s stance indicates its commitment to preserving judicial neutrality while also safeguarding the dignity of the institution.
High Court Reinforces Judicial Dignity and Rule of Law
The Madras High Court’s warning in the Thiruparankundram lamp lighting row underscores a larger issue: the increasing frequency of public and online attacks against judges. By asserting that the judiciary will not tolerate such conduct, the court has reaffirmed the importance of judicial independence and the constitutional need to protect its integrity.
As the case moves forward, the spotlight remains on whether the public discourse will shift back to the legal merits of the lamp lighting issue rather than personal criticisms of judicial officers.
