The Madras High Court on Monday (March 2) said Tamil Nadu Minister for Minerals and Mines S. Regupathy gave a “mischievous political spin” to the Thiruparankundram controversy.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a sub-application seeking to implead the Minister in an ongoing contempt petition against State authorities over alleged non-compliance with earlier court directions on lighting the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (stone pillar).
Plea to implead the Minister
The applicant relied on a newspaper report dated January 7, 2026. The report claimed the Minister said the prohibitory order was issued to frustrate the court’s order and that the Government would not permit lighting the lamp at the Deepathoon.
The report also attributed a comparison to cremation practices to the Minister. It suggested that, like cremation, the lamp could be lit only at an earmarked place.
The Court noted that the issue remains pending. It cautioned that public remarks contrary to a judicial order can attract the rule of sub judice.
“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.
Court on public comments
Justice Swaminathan said that once a verdict is delivered, parties must pursue appellate or review remedies. They cannot project views in public forums contrary to a court’s determination.
The Court added that criticism of judgments may be permissible. However, assuming a “regulatory authority” role in contradiction of judicial directions is not.
The Court also said it was “shocking” that a person who earlier held the post of Law Minister lacked what it called elementary knowledge of these principles.
AAG’s stand and Court’s reasoning
The Additional Advocate General disputed the alleged statements. He argued that the newspaper report should not be relied upon.
The Court, however, noted that the Minister had not issued any rebuttal. It also recorded that the cremation comparison attributed to the Minister drew widespread derision. The Court said the Minister could not claim ignorance of the controversy.
At the same time, the Court relied on an additional affidavit filed by the District Collector. The Collector said he proceeded on the basis that temple authorities would be allowed to light the lamp if no law and order issue arose. He stated that while issuing the prohibitory order, he did not intend to obstruct temple officials from lighting the lamp.
In view of the Collector’s affidavit, the Court declined to summon the Minister at this stage. It closed the sub-application. It also clarified that it could reopen the matter if circumstances later warranted.
Suggestion in contempt proceedings
In the pending contempt proceedings, the Court proposed a way to honour its order. It suggested permitting five persons, to be named by the Court, to go to the lower peak of the hillock where the Deepathoon is located and offer symbolic prayers for 15 minutes. The Court asked parties to obtain 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
