'Can’t Help Feeling That I Have Been Taken For A Ride': Madras High Court On Stay Sought By State In Thiruparankundram Deepam Contempt Case
The Madras High Court condemned the act of the State in seeking a stay of the contempt proceedings against the Officials in the Karthigai Deepam contempt case.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Madras High Court
Taking note of the fact that the LPAs had been filed, taking advantage of the window period of two weeks, the Madras High Court has condemned the act of the State in seeking a stay of the contempt proceedings against the Officials in the Karthigai Deepam contempt case.
The High Court was considering a Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for their willful, deliberate disobedience of the earlier orders of the Court.
The Single Bench of Justice G.R.Swaminathan stated, “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 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 litigation.”
Senior Counsel G.Karthikeyan represented the Petitioner while Addl. Advocate General Veerakathiravan represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
As the month of Karthigai had elapsed, Justice Swaminathan had 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. The temple management took time to deliberate over the said suggestion. Since a request for adjournment came from a highly respected senior counsel and it was for the purpose of considering the suggestion given by this Court, the adjournment was given by Justice Swaminathan.
Reasoning
Criticising the State for seeking a stay in order to file LPAs, the Bench noted, “But probably all is fair not only in love and war but also 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.”
The High Court, on December 3, 2025, in a contempt petition, passed the directions allowing the petitioners to light the deepam under CISF protection after the temple management and the state had failed to comply with its previous order. The Bench noted that this direction was challenged by the District Collector and the Commissioner of Police. The LPA was dismissed by the Division Bench on December 4, 2025.
The Bench thus held, “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 Hon'ble Division Bench given in L.P.A.(MD)No.8 of 2025. It is relevant to note that the order dismissing L.P.A.(MD)No.8 of 2025 is yet to be challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So long as the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforesaid LPA is holding good, I will have to proceed with the contempt proceedings.”
Noting that the contempt was not in respect of one order alone, the Bench held, “Be that as it may, in as much as the Hon'ble 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.”
Cause Title: Rama Ravikumar v. K.J.Praveenkumar (Case No.: CONT P(MD) Nos.3594 & 3657 of 2025)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Counsel G.Karthikeyan, RM.Arun Swaminathan
Respondent: Addl. Advocate General Veerakathiravan, Special Government Pleader C.Venkatesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor S.Ravi, Additional Advocate General J.Ravindran, V.Chandrasekar, DGSI K.Govindarajan