Introduction:
In a sharply worded order underscoring the sanctity of judicial proceedings and the doctrine of sub judice, the Madras High Court cautioned Tamil Nadu Minister for Minerals and Mines, S. Regupathy, for allegedly giving a “mischievous political spin” to the controversy surrounding the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon in Thiruparankundram. The matter arose in S Paramasivam v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others, where a sub-application was filed seeking to implead the Minister in an ongoing contempt petition against state authorities for allegedly failing to comply with the Court’s earlier order permitting the lighting of the ceremonial lamp.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, while declining to summon the Minister at this stage, delivered pointed observations on the limits of public commentary when an issue is pending before a court. The Bench reminded public functionaries that once a verdict is delivered, the proper course is to pursue appellate or review remedies—not to make statements in the public domain that contradict or undermine judicial directions.
Background of the Dispute:
The litigation centers on the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (Stone Pillar) located on the Thiruparankundram hillock. The controversy gained traction after prohibitory orders were allegedly issued by the District Collector, which, according to the petitioner, effectively frustrated the implementation of the Court’s earlier directions.
During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, a newspaper report dated January 7, 2026, quoted the Minister as stating that the prohibitory order was issued to prevent the lighting of the lamp at the Deepathoon. He was also reported to have compared the situation to cremation practices, suggesting that just as cremations are allowed only in designated places, the lighting of the lamp would be permitted only in earmarked areas.
These remarks became the basis for the sub-application seeking to implead the Minister in the contempt proceedings. It was contended that such statements not only undermined the Court’s authority but also reflected an intent to bypass or frustrate judicial orders.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Subbiah, argued that the Minister’s public statements amounted to interference with the administration of justice. The petitioner relied on the reported remarks to assert that the prohibitory order was not merely an administrative decision but was issued with the intention of negating the Court’s earlier direction.
It was submitted that when a matter is sub judice, any public pronouncement by a constitutional functionary—especially one holding ministerial office—must be measured and restrained. The petitioner argued that the Minister’s alleged comparison to cremation practices trivialized the issue and demonstrated disregard for judicial authority.
The plea to implead the Minister was grounded in the contention that his statements had a direct bearing on the contempt proceedings. If the prohibitory order was indeed issued to frustrate the Court’s mandate, as suggested in the reported remarks, then such conduct warranted judicial scrutiny.
The petitioner emphasized that public confidence in the judiciary depends on strict adherence to court orders. Allowing political commentary that contradicts judicial verdicts, it was argued, would erode the rule of law and encourage executive overreach.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:
The respondents were represented by Mr. V. Giri, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. C. Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader; Mr. S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor; and Mr. J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. V. Chandrasekar.
The Additional Advocate General strongly denied the authenticity of the alleged statements attributed to the Minister. It was argued that newspaper reports cannot be treated as conclusive proof and that no official confirmation of such remarks had been produced.
The State further contended that the District Collector’s actions were guided solely by considerations of law and order. In an additional affidavit filed before the Court, the Collector clarified that the decision to issue prohibitory orders was based on apprehensions of potential disturbances and not on any intent to defy the Court’s directions.
The respondents urged the Court not to summon or implead the Minister based on unverified media reports. It was argued that doing so would set a dangerous precedent and unnecessarily politicize the proceedings.
Court’s Observations:
Justice G.R. Swaminathan’s observations were marked by clarity and firmness. The Court noted that the issue of whether the Collector’s prohibitory order amounted to contempt was already under consideration. In such circumstances, the doctrine of sub judice squarely applied.
The Court observed:
“I conclude that Thiru Ragupathy has given a mischievous political spin to the turn of events. Whether the issuance of prohibitory order by the District Collector is an act of contempt or not is the subject matter of proceedings before this Court. The rule of sub-judice will kick in. Let the Hon’ble Minister bear this principle in mind.”
The Bench underscored that after a verdict is pronounced, parties must either file an appeal or seek review. While public criticism of judgments is permissible within democratic norms, assuming the role of a regulatory authority or issuing statements contrary to judicial orders is impermissible.
In particularly strong words, the Court remarked that it was “shocking” that a person who had previously served as Law Minister appeared to lack elementary understanding of these principles.
The Court also noted that the alleged cremation analogy had drawn widespread derision, indicating that the Minister could not plead ignorance of the controversy. However, the Bench stopped short of summoning him, primarily because the District Collector’s additional affidavit contradicted the theory suggested by the reported remarks.
Decision on the Sub-Application:
Taking into account the Collector’s clarification that law and order concerns were the sole consideration, and that there was no intention to hinder temple authorities from lighting the lamp, the Court declined to implead the Minister at this stage.
The sub-application was closed, but the Court made it clear that it would not hesitate to reopen the matter if circumstances warranted such action.
Suggestion in Contempt Proceedings:
Regarding the broader contempt proceedings, the Court proposed a practical solution to uphold its earlier order while addressing law and order concerns. It suggested permitting five persons, to be named by the Court, to proceed to the lower peak of the hillock where the Deepathoon is situated. They would be allowed to offer symbolic prayers for fifteen minutes.
The parties were directed to obtain instructions on this proposal, reflecting the Court’s attempt to strike a balance between enforcement of its mandate and maintenance of public order.