“I've Been Taken For A Ride”: Madras HC Judge On State Seeking Stay Of Thiruparankundram Contempt Proceedings After Taking Adjournment

Justice GR Swaminathan noted that the State had previously sought an adjournment in the contempt plea, stating that it would deliberate on the Court's suggestion to name 5 persons who could go and light a ceremonial lamp in compliance with its earlier order. The Court added that the State had taken advantage of this window to get an order of stay.

While the Court recognised that the State had a right to avail legal remedies, the judge remarked that it was taken for a ride.

“Taking advantage of this window period of two weeks, LPAs have been filed. It is the right of the respondents to avail the judicial remedies open to them in law. But I cannot help feeling that I have been taken for a ride. If adjournment is sought to come back to the Court with a response and the request is accepted by the Court, fairness requires that the course of action undertaken is adopted. But probably all is fair not only in love and war but also litigation,” the judge said.

The Court also noted that it had passed several orders in the contempt petition. And even though an appeal was filed against the order in contempt proceedings directing the lighting of the lamp by the petitioner devotees, the division bench had dismissed the letter patent appeal, noting that it was for the single judge to test whether the non-compliance of the earlier order was wilful or not.

The Court thus noted that when the division bench had specifically said that the court proceeding against breach of direction in the first contempt order could go on, the court would be failing in its duty if it did not continue with the case. However, since the division bench was already seized of the matter, the court decided to adjourn the plea.

To recall, while hearing the contempt plea previously, the court had suggested that the order can be respected by permitting 5 persons, named by the court, to go to the lower peak of the hillock where the deepathoon lies so that symbolic prayers can be offered for 15 minutes. Since the parties had sought time to deliberate on the suggestion, the court had adjourned the hearing.

Meanwhile, the State officers filed latter patent appeal against the various orders passed by the single judge during the hearing of the contempt plea. The division bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman on Tuesday (March 17), stayed the contempt proceedings.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Karthikeyan, Senior Counsel for Mr. RM. Arun Swaminathan, Mr.K.P.S.Palanivelrajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Subbiah

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Veerakathiravan, Addl. Advocate General, assisted by Mr. C. Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader, Mr. Veerakathiravan, Addl. Advocate General, Assisted by Mr. S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. V. Chandrasekar, Mr. K. Govindarajan, DSGI

Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others

Case No: CONT P(MD) Nos.3594 & 3657 of 2025 in W.P.(MD)Nos.32317 & 33197 of 2025