‘Mischievous political spin’: Madras High Court raps Tamil Nadu minister over Thiruparankundram Deepam remarks

One cannot pronounce opinions contrary to a judicial verdict in the public fora, said the Madras High Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

“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 on March 2.

The Madras High Court came down heavily on the minister. (Image enhanced using AI)

The court stopped short of summoning the minister in contempt proceedings but left little doubt about its disapproval.

‘Statement deserves severe condemnation’

• I have no doubt that the statement attributed to the minister deserves severe condemnation.
• When the writ court had permitted lighting the lamp atop the hill, it is only the division bench or the Supreme Court which alone can hold otherwise.
• It is not for any other authority let alone a state minister to dare to say that such lighting cannot be permitted.
• When the matter has come to the domain of the court, the parties to the lis have to abide by the outcome of the judicial proceedings.

• 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.

No rebuttal from minister

• I wonder whether for public consumption Thiru.Ragupathy made a statement.
• It is too obvious that Thiru.S.Ragupathy had given such a statement.
• This is because no rebuttal has come from him so far.
• In fact, his related comment on cremation grounds evoked widespread derision.
• Therefore, he cannot plead ignorance in the matter.

• From his silence on this issue, one can safely conclude that Thiru.Ragupathy did make such a statement that the government would not permit lighting the lamp atop the hill.
• Even though as early as on January 6, he claimed that the government would file an appeal challenging the division bench order made on the same day, till date, no such appeal appears to have been filed.

Collector’s affidavit changes course

• Despite the strong observations, Justice Swaminathan decided against summoning the minister as a contemnor.
• This decision came after the district collector of Madurai filed an additional affidavit clarifying that the prohibitory order issued under Section 163 BNSS was not intended to frustrate the high court’s earlier direction permitting the lighting of the lamp.
• Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, empowers executive magistrates to issue urgent, written orders to prevent nuisance, danger to human life/safety, or public disturbances.

• Corresponding to Section 144 of the CrPC, it restricts assembly, movement, or specific actions for up to two months, extendable to six months by the State.
• The collector stated that the sole concern was to prevent law and order problems and that the order “definitely did not contemplate the hindrance to temple officials / devaswom lighting the lamp in accordance with the Judgment” of the high court.

‘Rule of sub judice will kick in’

• The court also issued a broader caution.
• Since the legality of the prohibitory order itself is under examination in contempt proceedings, the matter is sub judice.

• “The rule of sub-judice will kick in. Let the Hon’ble Minister bear this principle in mind,” the judge said.
• In other words, public commentary on issues actively being adjudicated must be tempered with constitutional responsibility.

Application closed, not door

• The sub-application to implead the minister as a contemnor was ultimately closed.
• However, Justice Swaminathan made it clear that the court would not hesitate to reopen the matter “if the occasion demands”.

Dispute over Deepam

• The controversy revolves around the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) atop the Thiruparankundram hill, associated with the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple in Madurai.
• Earlier, a division bench of the high court had permitted the lighting of the lamp.
• However, a prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, was later issued by the district collector, citing concerns over law and order.

• Against this backdrop, a sub-application was filed seeking to implead minister S Regupathy as a contemnor in ongoing contempt proceedings.
• The move was triggered by a January 7, 2026 report in a local newspaper, which attributed to the minister a statement that the government would not permit the lighting of the lamp at the hilltop Deepathoon.