Madras High Court Justice GR Swaminathan on Wednesday remarked that he believes in respecting court orders, unlike local authorities in Madurai, who failed to implement court directives to light the Karthigai deepam (lamp to mark the Hindu festival of lights) atop the Thiruparankundram hillock.
The judge made the comment after counsel representing the Madurai authorities said that a Division Bench of the Court yesterday stayed all contempt proceedings pending before Justice Swaminathan against the State authorities in relation to the matter.
However, the counsel representing temple devotees, who had filed the contempt cases, countered that the stay order applies only to a December 4, 2025, order passed by Justice Swaminathan.
Justice Swaminathan responded by saying he will go by the formal text of the interim stay order produced before him. The judge proceeded to ask where in the stay order it was indicated that the entire contempt proceedings had been stayed.
Notably, the stay order passed by the Division Bench on Tuesday states:
"Considering the submissions made on either side, there shall be an order of interim stay till 08.04.2026."
The State's counsel today maintained that the common interim order also applied to a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP), which challenged all contempt of court proceedings.
He added that confusion could be avoided if a clarification were to be sought from the Registry on the prayer made in this CMP.
The CMP is clearly noted on the first page of the Division Bench's stay order. This meant that the interim stay also pertains to contempt proceedings referred to in this CMP in its prayer, the State said.
"How do I know what prayer you have made there?" Justice Swaminathan asked, in turn.
A report could be called from the Registry on this aspect, the State's counsel suggested.
"It is not my job. I will go by the interim order you have produced before me. Why should I (ask Registry for more clarifications)? Is it my job? It’s not my job. It is my duty to obey whatever the Division Bench has passed. I believe in showing respect to court orders, unlike you people," Justice Swaminathan replied.
The matter is tied to a December 2025 ruling that a stone pillar on the Thiruparankundram hillock is a Deepathoon belonging to the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple.
The Court had directed restoration of the traditional Karthigai Deepam lighting at the site, clarifying that such observance would not affect the rights of the nearby Muslim shrine, the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah.
Despite the ruling, the lamp was not lit during the Karthigai festival, prompting devotees to initiate contempt of court proceedings.
During today's hearing of the matter, Justice Swaminathan again criticised the State's apparent efforts to continue defying his directives.
"Don't we have to decide this (AAG) Mr. Ravindran? Don't be so defiant. Don't show your defiance against me," Justice Swaminathan told Additional Advocate General J Ravindran.
"It is not so milord. I don’t know why Lordship is taking it like that," the AAG replied.
The Court further questioned why Madurai police officers who were supposed to be personally present in Court had chosen not to appear for the hearing today.
"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 they are not present before me?" the judge asked.
When the State's counsel again requested permission to approach the registry for a clarification on whether the entire contempt proceedings had been stayed, the Justice Swaminathan added:
"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."
The Court eventually adjourned all three contempt of court petitions filed in the matter.
In the interim order, the Court also recorded that it had earlier adjourned the contempt case only because senior counsel representing the Thiruparankundram temple management had said that it wished to deliberate on the suggestion to "symbolically" comply with the Court's directive.
"Since a request for adjournment came from a highly respected senior counsel and ground was only to consider a suggestion from the court, I had no reason to reject the request, even though the petitioners' counsel opposed the same vehemently," the Court observed.
However, taking advantage of the two-week window, appeals were filed, Justice Swaminathan observed. The judge also reminded counsel present that another Division Bench had earlier specifically left it to the single-judge to decide whether the Madurai authorities were guilty of committing contempt of court.
"Taking advantage of two-week window, appeals were filed. Respondents have right to avail judicial remedies. However, the fact remains that challenging the earlier, direction, the District Collector and Commissioner of Police had filed appeal. Said appeal was dismissed by Division Bench (earlier), and Division Bench had specifically observed that it is for single judge to test if disobedience of December 4 order was wilful or not," the order noted.
The contempt case has been listed next on April 9, a day after the Division Bench is slated to hear the appeals filed against Justice Swaminathan's orders.
[Live Coverage]