In the ongoing Thiruparankundram Karthigai Deepam matter, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court declined to accept the argument questioning the maintainability of the contempt proceedings.
The court was hearing a Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnors/respondents and punish them for the wilful disobedience of the order of the High Court in WP(MD) No.33197 of 2025 dated 01.12.2025.
Justice GR Swaminathan, in his 14-page order delivered on March 4, commenting on the argument of the respondents’ counsel that when the order of the Single Judge has merged with the order of the Division Bench in the writ appeal, a contempt petition can be maintained only before the Division Bench and not before the Single Judge, said, “I am afraid that I cannot subscribe to the aforesaid submission. The reason is simple. There has been a march of law and probably Vikas Singh, Senior Counsel, did not have the time to come across the latest decision of the Supreme Court.”
The court cited that the Supreme Court had held that the contempt jurisdiction is independent of the applicability of the doctrine of merger. “Vikas Singh appeared through VC and even as I was pointing out to him about the latest decision of the Supreme Court, someone passed on to him a copy of it. I expected Vikas Singh to feel sorry. Far from it. It is probably unlike the man. He still argued that since the Division Bench had modified the order of this Court, this contempt petition would not lie before me.”
The judge said, “Order dated 01.12.2025 passed by me directed the temple management/devasthanam to light the Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon also apart from the usual places. The only question before the Division Bench was whether this Court was right in directing the temple management to light the lamp at the Deepathoon. The Division Bench, vide its order dated 06.01.2026 in WA(MD) No.3188 of 2025 etc., batch, directed that the Devasthanam must light the lamp at the Deepathoon. Thus, the order passed by this Court was confirmed. There was no modification or reversal. Hence, I have no hesitation in rejecting the preliminary objection raised by Vikas Singh as to the maintainability of the contempt petitions before me.”
Justice Swaminathan said, “The contempt petitions before me pertain not only to the violation of the order dated 01.12.2025 but also to the orders dated 03.12.2025 and 04.12.2025. Questioning the order dated 03.12.2025, the District Collector and the Commissioner of Police filed LPA(MD) No.8 of 2025. The Division Bench, vide order dated 04.12.2025, dismissed the LPA filed by the contemnors herein. Vikas Singh is labouring under the impression that I am dealing only with the violation of the order dated 01.12.2025. He is wrong. Probably he has been instructed only in the contempt petition arising out of the order dated 01.12.2025 alone. Let me remind him that I am seized of the breach of the direction given not only on 01.12.2025 but also on the subsequent dates. To frustrate the order passed by me, a prohibitory order was issued. The prohibitory order was quashed in the presence of the police. Still, the police force of Madurai City, headed by the Commissioner of Police, DCP South and the ACP, resisted implementation of the order of this Court. Therefore, in any event, these contempt petitions are maintainable.”
The judge said, “I wanted to implead Mrs P. Sathya Priya, N. Mani Selvan, T.M. Bomma Thevan, V. Shanmuga Sundaram and T. Ramiah, the temple trustees, also as contemnors. I also wanted to frame charges against J. Loganathan, Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, and A.G. Inigo Divyan, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madurai South, Madurai City. But then, the Senior Counsels appearing for them reiterated that the suggestion that has come from this Court on March 2 deserves to be deliberated at length and a careful decision has to be taken after consulting the department and sought time. I am inclined to accede to the said request. I adjourn the proceedings by two more weeks.”
The court, dispensing with the appearance of the trustees for the present, said, “But the police officials named in the order dated 02.03.2026 shall remain present on the next hearing date. Call these cases on 18.03.2026 at 04.00 pm.”
The judge said, “I categorically warn all the contemnors that if an appropriate response is not received by March 18, charges will be framed on the said date and enquiry will be taken up on a day-to-day basis. I do not believe in adjournment culture and the proceedings will conclude one way or the other before the month end. Let me remind that if reckless comments are made by dignitaries, they also will be roped in. Before law all are one and no one can claim immunity merely because they happen to hold high offices.”
