Madras High Court Upholds Judicial Authority: Judge's Use of Central Forces in Deepathoon Case Declared Legal

It's not everyday you hear about a judge calling in central forces for a site inspection, but that's precisely what happened in the long-running Tirupparankundram Deepathoon case, a situation that certainly raised a few eyebrows. Now, the Madras High Court has weighed in, settling a rather intriguing legal question: was such a move permissible? Well, the short answer, according to the court, is a resounding yes.

For those unfamiliar, the 'Deepathoon' is essentially a historic lamp post, but in Tirupparankundram, it's far more than just a structure; it's a focal point of a significant and often contentious dispute. This particular case has seen a lot of back-and-forth, primarily revolving around claims between the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple authorities and a specific community over the Deepathoon's ownership and usage. Things got particularly tense after the structure was unfortunately damaged back in 2020, prompting the current legal wrangling.

The whole controversy we're discussing today really kicked off when Justice G. Ilangovan, acting as the Single Judge overseeing the matter, felt it absolutely necessary to conduct a personal inspection of the Deepathoon. Given the volatile history and the potential for trouble, he made a proactive decision, requesting assistance from the Central Industrial Security Force, or CISF, to ensure the site's protection during his visit. It was a measure taken, one presumes, out of a genuine concern for order and the integrity of the evidence.

Naturally, this unprecedented step didn't go unnoticed. The petitioners in the original case, feeling that the judge had perhaps overstepped his judicial bounds by summoning central forces, lodged a complaint. They argued, quite strongly, that such an act was 'illegal' and 'unauthorised,' suggesting it amounted to an interference with established protocols and perhaps even a display of judicial overreach. It certainly presented a fascinating point of law for the higher court to consider.

However, a Division Bench comprising Justices P. B. Balaji and N. Seshayee has now firmly put those concerns to rest. In their recent ruling, they emphatically stated that there was 'no illegality' whatsoever in Justice Ilangovan's decision. They underscored a crucial point: the primary duty of a judge in such a scenario is to safeguard the property in question and, crucially, to maintain law and order so that justice can proceed unhindered.

What's particularly telling in their judgment is the implied, and at times explicit, critique of the state police's role, or rather, their perceived lack of effective action. The bench highlighted that if the state police had been more proactive or capable of providing adequate protection to the Deepathoon and ensuring a peaceful inspection, there would have been no need for the judge to seek external assistance. It essentially validated the judge's decision as a necessary measure taken in response to an existing void or perceived inadequacy in local security.

This ruling, you see, isn't just about a lamp post in Tirupparankundram. It sends a clear message about the judiciary's inherent powers and its commitment to ensuring that its proceedings, and the properties involved, are protected, even if it means resorting to extraordinary measures when circumstances demand it. It reaffirms the court's authority to take decisive action to uphold the rule of law and protect the sanctity of its investigations, especially when local conditions are, let's say, less than ideal.

So, while the Deepathoon case continues its journey through the legal system, this particular chapter closes with a strong affirmation of judicial independence and the pragmatic lengths courts can go to ensure justice is not only served but also protected from external disruptions. It's a reminder that sometimes, unconventional solutions are precisely what's needed.