‘Mischievous political spin’: Madras HC rebukes TN minister S Reghupathy in Thiruparankundram deepam case

MADURAI: Madras high court has suggested to Tamil Nadu govt that the latter could permit a group of five people named by the court to offer symbolic prayers (not lighting a lamp) atop the Thiruparankundram hill, if it wants to show respect to the earlier orders of the court.

Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madurai bench of the high court made this suggestion after the Madurai district collector filed an additional affidavit saying he promulgated the prohibition orders on Dec 1, 2025 only to prevent law and order situation and not to hinder temple authorities from enforcing the high court’s orders to light the r deepam at the stone pillar atop the hill.


“One factor that I had kept in mind was that the temple management would be enabled to implement the court order only if there is no law and order situation in the hillock area. The prohibition issued under Section 163 of BNSS, 2023 definitely did not contemplate the hindrance to temple officials lighting the lamp in accordance with the judgment of the High Court dated December 1, 2025,” the affidavit of Madurai collector K J Praveen Kumar said.

In his response, Justice Swaminathan said: "I suggest that respect to the order passed by this court can be shown by permitting a group of exactly five persons to be named by this court to go to the lower peak of the hillock where deepathoon lies so that symbolic prayers can be offered. I further indicate that this entire exercise can be confined to 15 minutes. This is only a suggestion and not a direction.”

The court was hearing contempt petitions filed over non-compliance of an earlier order directing the lighting of Karthigai deepam at the deepathoon atop Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai district.

Justice Swaminathan also observed that the fact remains that on account of the prohibitory order passed by the collector, the order passed by the court was frustrated. The police took shelter only behind the order passed by the collector and made it clear that they were only enforcing the order passed by the collector while resisting the implementation of the order.

The judge then adjourned the hearing to March 4, after the state submitted that they would get back on the suggestion made by the court.

Later, the judge also closed a sub-application seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against the state minister S Reghupathy for his reported statements relating to the issue.

"I conclude that Reghupathy has given a mischievous political spin to the turn of events. Whether the issuance of prohibitory order by the collector is an act of contempt or not is the subject matter of proceedings before the court. The rule of sub-judice will kick in. Let the minister bear this principle in mind. In view of the stand taken by the 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 judge observed.

“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 division bench or the 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,” said Justice Swaminathan.