While hearing a contempt petition, Justice Swaminathan criticised Madurai authorities for failing to light the Karthigai Deepam atop Thiruparankundram Hillock despite clear court directions issued. He said he respects court orders, unlike those officials, stressing accountability within the Madras High Court system.
A Division Bench stayed the contempt proceedings initiated against IPS officers, the District Collector, and the temple EO. He said he would rely on the exact wording of the interim stay order presented to him and asked where it said that the entire contempt proceedings were stayed. The Division Bench’s interim order said, “Considering the submissions made on either side, there shall be an order of interim stay till 08.04.2026.”
The TN State counsel argued that the common interim order also covered a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) that sought to challenge all contempt proceedings. The CMP is listed on the first page of the Division Bench’s order, the State noted, and therefore the interim stay should extend to the contempt matters referenced in the CMP’s prayer.
To this, Justice G R Swaminathan asked, “How do I know what prayer you have made there?” “I believe in showing respect to court orders, unlike you people.”
On March 18, the judge said in a ten-page order, “In respect of what has come to be known as ‘The Thiruparankundram Lighting order’, as many as three contempt petitions have been filed. They are Cont.P.(MD)Nos.3594 and 3657 of 2025 and Cont.P.(MD)No.252 of 2026. I had passed quite a few directions in these proceedings. The main order was passed in the writ petition on 01.12.2025. The second order was passed by me on 03.12.2025. The third order was passed by me on 04.12.2025.”
The court observed, “Since the month of Karthigai had elapsed, I suggested to the authorities that they could show symbolic respect to the Court’s order and still work out their legal remedies. This option was given to give a quietus. It is relevant to note that in contempt proceedings, the Court has a duty to issue appropriate directions for remedying or rectifying the things done in violation of the Court’s order and, in that regard, the Court may even take restitutive measures at any stage of the proceedings (Vide (2017) 5 SCC 506). It was in that spirit that I had given a certain suggestion.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the temple management specifically took time for deliberating over the said suggestion. Since a request for adjournment came from a senior counsel and it was for the purpose of considering the suggestion given by this Court, I had no reason to reject the request. I must record that adjournment was given by me in the face of vehement opposition by the senior counsel and other counsel appearing for the petitioners.”
The judge said, “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 in litigation.
On the last occasion, I had specifically directed that the police officials should be present. Neither Loganathan nor Inigo Divyan are present in person. One of them is on record stating that he will face the consequences. I must record that the direction given by me on 03.12.2025 was put to challenge by Praveenkumar, District Collector, and Loganathan, Commissioner of Police, in L.P.A.(MD)No.8 of 2025. The said LPA was dismissed by the Division Bench on 04.12.2025. The Division Bench had held that it is for me to test whether the non-compliance of the direction given on 03.12.2025 was wilful or not. Therefore, the contempt proceedings, insofar as they pertain to breach of the direction on 03.12.2025, will have to go on. Otherwise, I would be failing in my duty by not complying with the direction of the Division Bench given in L.P.A.(MD)No.8 of 2025,” he added.
Justice Swaminathan, in his concluding words, said, “It is relevant to note that the order dismissing L.P.A.(MD)No.8 of 2025 is yet to be challenged before the Supreme Court. So long as the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid LPA is holding good, I will have to proceed with the contempt proceedings. As already mentioned, contempt is not in respect of one order alone. Be that as it may, inasmuch as the Division Bench is seized of the matter and interim stay has been granted till 08.04.2026, the present proceedings stand adjourned to 09.04.2026.”
The single bench had ordered restoration of the traditional Karthigai Deepam lighting at the site, while clarifying that the observance would not affect the rights of the nearby Muslim shrine, the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah.
Despite that direction, the lamp was not lit during the Karthigai festival, prompting devotees to initiate contempt proceedings. The contempt hearing had previously been adjourned because senior counsel for the Thiruparankundram temple management asked for time to consider a suggestion to “symbolically” comply with the Court’s directive.
Earlier during the hearing, Justice Swaminathan told Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran, “Don’t we have to decide this, AAG Ravindran? Don’t be so defiant. Don’t show your defiance against me.” To this, the AAG replied, “It is not so, milord. I don’t know why Lordship is taking it like that.”
The court also questioned why Madurai police officers required to appear personally were absent. The judge asked, “Where are the police officials? Answer that first… Does Inigo (Deputy Commissioner AG Inigo Divya) and Loganathan (Commissioner of Madurai City Police, J Loganathan) think too much of themselves? I gave exemption only to trustees and the Collector; I didn’t give it to the police. Why are they not present before me?”
Justice Swaminathan said, “I know how to respect the Division Bench order… I don’t want to see their (police officers’) faces hereafter. I will deal with them in the manner known to law.”
