The Madras High Court on Monday observed that a comment made by Tamil Nadu's Minister of Minerals and Mines, S Reghupathy on the Thiruparankundram hillock Karthigai Deepam, issue was mischievous and deserved to be condemned. .Justice GR Swaminathan was told that the Minister had reportedly hinted that the government would not allow the lighting of the lamp atop the hillock, despite court orders. A report by Tamil Nadu daily Dinamalar is said to have indicated that the Minister said that prohibitory orders were imposed last year to prevent the lighting of the lamp. The judge yesterday took a serious view of such comments. "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 Hon'ble Division Bench or the Hon'ble 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," he said.Justice Swaminathan added that while it is permissible for people to criticise court judgments or even challenge them through appeals, they cannot assume the role of a 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," the Court said. .It also noted that the District Collector at Madurai, who is presently facing contempt of court proceedings over the local authorities' failure to enable the lighting of the lamp, had contradicted the minister's version of events. In an affidavit before the Court, the Collector submitted that he had issued prohibitory orders that restricted crowds and effectively prevented the lighting of the lamp during the last Karthigai festival only to prevent law and order issues, and not to deliberately flout court orders.The judge concluded that Reghupathy had made his comment only to give a mischievous political spin to the issue, and seemingly for publicity. "Even though as early as on 06.01.2026, he claimed that the Government would file an appeal (against orders permitting the lighting of the lamp atop the hill), till date, no such appeal appears to have been filed. I wonder whether for public consumption Thiru.Ragupathy made a statement ... I conclude that Thiru.Ragupathy has given a mischievous political spin to the turn of events," the Court said. .However, it refrained from summoning the Minister to get an explanation from him since the District Collector at Madurai had denied any intention on the part of the local authorities to deliberately flout court orders. "I desist from summoning Thiru.Ragupathy because his stand has been controverted by none other than the District Collector, Madurai who is the author of the prohibitory order. While Thiru.Ragupathy would claim that only to frustrate the court order, prohibitory order was passed, the District Collector makes it clear that he had no such intention," the Court said. .Therefore, the Court proceeded to close the application filed to make the Minister a party to the ongoing contempt proceedings.The contempt proceedings are currently pending against local authorities in Madurai over their failure to implement orders to light the lamp atop the hillock. Justice Swaminathan, however, warned that he would reopen the application if needed in the future. "In view of the stand taken by the District Collector that he rejects the theory propounded by the Minister, I deem it fit to close this Sub Application. I make it clear that I will not hesitate to reopen this sub application if the occasion demands," the March 2 order said.The contempt case will be heard next on March 4. .Advocate P Subbiah represented a petitioner who filed the contempt case against the local authorities.Senior Advocate V Giri assisted by Special Government Pleader Venkatesh Kumar represented the Madurai District Collector, KJ Praveenkumar (IAS). Giri was assisted by Additional Public Prosecutor S Ravi in his representation for Madurai Police Commissioner, J Loganathan (IPS).Additional Advocate General J Ravindran assisted by advocate V Chandrasekar represented the Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple at Thirupparankundram,.[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
