Minister Ragupathy Gave Mischievous Political Spin To Thiruparankundram Issue: Madras High Court

Justice GR Swaminathan was hearing a sub-application filed for impleading the Minister in the ongoing contempt petition against the state authorities for failing to comply with the court order and not permitting lighting of the lamp.

It had been argued that as per a newspaper article on 7^th January 2026, the Minister had allegedly stated that the prohibitory order was issued to frustrate the court order and that the government would not permit the lighting of lamp at the deepathoon. The Minister had also allegedly compared the issue to cremation and said that when cremation is permitted only at certain places, similarly, lighting of lamp would also be permitted at area earmarked for it. The judge said that the issue was sub-judice before the court and the Minister should keep the principle in mind, before commenting on it.

“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 court said.

The court added that once an order is passed, the option available to the parties is either to appeal or review. The court added that while people could comment or criticise a judgment, they could not pronounce opinion contrary to the court order in the public domain. The court added that it was shocking that the Minister, who had previously held the post of Law Minister, lacked this elementary knowledge.

“After the verdict has been pronounced, the only option open to the parties is to explore the possibilities of appeal or review. One cannot pronounce opinions contrary to a judicial verdict in the public fora. One can comment or criticise the judgment. But one cannot assume the role of regulatory authority when the court has given its judgment. It is shocking that this elementary knowledge is lacking on the part of a person who held the high office of Law Minister,” the court said.

Though the Additional Advocate General denied the alleged statements by the Minister and that the newspaper report should not be trusted, the court noted that the minister had not rebutted the claim. The court also noted that the comment made by the Minister regarding cremation had evoked widespread derision. Thus, the court concluded that the Minister could not plead ignorance in the matter.

However, the court noted that the District Collector, in his additional affidavit filed before the court, had taken a stand that would reject the theory of the Minister. The court noted that in the additional affidavit, the Collector stated that the one factor he had kept in mind was that the temple authorities would be permitted to light the lamp only if there was no law and order issue and while issuing the prohibitory order, he had not contemplate the hindrance to temple officials in lighting the lamp.

Thus, since the Collector had controverted the stand taken by the Minister, the court was not inclined to summon the Minister. The court also thought it fit to close the sub-application but made it clear that it would not hesitate from reopening the matter if occasion demands.

With respect to the contempt proceeding against the authorities, the court 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. The court directed the parties to get instructions on the suggestion.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. Subbiah

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. V. Giri, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. C. Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader, Mr. S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. V. Chandrasekar

Case Title: S Paramasivam v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 97

Case No: SUB APPLICATION (MD)No.94 of 2026 in Cont P(MD) No.3657 of 2025