Thiruparakundram Deepam Row | Contempt Proceeding Not Political, Only Want To Ensure Court Order Is Respected: Madras High Court Remarks

Justice GR Swaminathan orally commented that he just wanted to ensure that the court orders were respected. When the petitioners argued that the authorities were only trying to delay the proceedings and ensure good name for the government before election, the judge remarked that the issue was not political for him and he was only making sure that the court order is respected.

“Even elections would not affect the court order. This is not political. At least for me this is not political….I want court orders to be respected,” the judge orally remarked.

In the previous hearing, 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. The court directed the parties to get instructions on the suggestion.

When the matter was taken up today, Senior Advocate NR Elango, appearing for the District Collector requested that the authorities be given two weeks' time to contemplate on the judge's suggestion. He submitted that the authorities had full respect to the court's order and wanted to deliberate at length, for which time was needed.

The court agreed to grant additional time, but remarked that it would suo motu implead the temple board to the contempt proceeding and frae charges against them for their failure to comply with the directions.

To this, Additional Advocate Veera Kathiravan submitted that the Board's delay in complying with the order was only since they were contemplating to appeal against his order. Kathiravan submitted that since the Sthanikars had told the board that lighting the lamp at any other place was against the agama shastra, the board was planning to take the single judge's order on appeal. He added that contemplating an appeal should not be taken as contempt and requested the court to reconsider taking suo motu action against the temple board.

Though the counsel also sought two weeks' time, the court said it will grant one week for the authorities to deliberate and get back on the court's suggestions. The court also added that in addition to the 5 persons to be named by the court, the original writ petitioners should also be permitted to go along with them to light a ceremonial lamp. The court added that it was the petitioners who had fought for the issue and not the temple board and thus, the petitioners should be permitted to light the lamp.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the police authorities submitted that the contempt proceeding was no longer maintainable since the single judge's order had merged with that of the division bench after the decision on appeal. He submitted that applying the doctrine of merger, the single judge's order no longer existed as the division bench had affirmed but modified the single judge's order.

Singh also argued that the division bench had ruled that the light should be lit from the next year. Thus, he argued that there was no question of lighting the lamp presently, and nothing was left to be pursued in the contempt plea.

Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS and Others

Case No: CONT P(MD) Nos.3594 & 3657 of 2025