Justice GR Swaminathan questioned Senior Advocate Vikas Singh over reported remarks suggesting the judge had political ambitions during the Thiruparankundram lamp-lighting contempt hearing. The Madras High Court also sought an explanation from the State Chief Secretary over alleged non-compliance with court orders.
Madras High Court Justice GR Swaminathan on Wednesday strongly questioned Senior Advocate Vikas Singh over certain remarks allegedly made by him about the judge’s political intentions, during the hearing of a contempt of court petition.
The matter relates to an earlier order passed by Justice Swaminathan directing the lighting of the traditional Karthigai deepam (sacred lamp) on the deepathon (stone lamp pillar) located at the top of the holy Thiruparankundram hill in Tamil Nadu.
A contempt plea was filed alleging that government officials failed to comply with this court order.
When Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the State authorities, began making submissions through video conferencing, Justice Swaminathan interrupted and directly asked him whether he was willing to repeat certain statements that were attributed to him in media reports of the previous day’s hearing.
The Court was referring to Singh’s earlier submissions questioning the basis of the judge’s order to light the lamp. According to reports published by Bar & Bench, Singh had allegedly made a remark suggesting that the judge had political ambitions, stating:
“I don’t understand where has the judge gone, what all he is doing in this process. If he wants to contest elections”.
When Justice Swaminathan asked Singh about these reported remarks, the senior advocate responded that he did not understand what the judge was referring to.
The judge then clarified that he had personally read the newspaper reports which mentioned Singh’s alleged statement insinuating that he intended to contest elections.
Justice Swaminathan told Singh,
“What appeared in the papers today. That I planned to contest the elections… repeat that again now. Repeat,”
In response, Singh stated that he did not wish to repeat any such statement. However, the judge continued to press the issue and insisted that Singh repeat what he had allegedly said during the previous day’s proceedings.
Justice Swaminathan asked,
“Would you mind repeating the words uttered yesterday before the division bench before me right now?”
Singh again refused and replied clearly:
“No. I don’t want to.”
During the same hearing, Justice Swaminathan also questioned the State Chief Secretary, Thiru N Muruganandam, asking him to explain why district-level officers had failed to implement the Court’s order regarding the lamp-lighting at Thiruparankundram.
The Chief Secretary had been summoned by the Court after observing what it described as a pattern of non-compliance with judicial orders in matters connected to the Thiruparankundram dispute. However, the Court made it clear that Muruganandam was not being called to argue the correctness of the earlier order.
Justice Swaminathan said,
“Be clear in your mind that I have not called you regarding the primary order passed by me in the main repudiation. I have called you only to get your feedback on what happened subsequently,”
The judge further stated that he took seriously the suggestion that district collectors may have deliberately tried to bypass or nullify the writ order passed by him under constitutional authority. He asked the Chief Secretary to clarify whether the collectors acted on their own or were acting under instructions from higher authorities.
“I want you to make a statement as to whether these district collectors have ordered entirely on their own or on instructions.”
In response, Muruganandam told the Court that he would collect the relevant information from the concerned officers and submit a detailed written reply.
At the same time, the Chief Secretary assured the Court that the State government had no intention of disobeying court orders.
He explained that government officers sometimes face genuine challenges, including lack of funds, law-and-order concerns, or situations where there are conflicting judicial orders.
Muruganandam said,
“In such cases, the officers know they have the right of appeal… In all the three instances mentioned by my lord, I think the officers have gone on writ appeal and the writ appeal is being heard,”
He further stated that maintaining public order was the government’s top priority and requested four weeks’ time to file a comprehensive written explanation.
At this point, Justice Swaminathan referred to another case involving a litigant named Vincent, which concerned a family property dispute between brothers.
The Court recalled that it had passed an interim order restraining the construction of a church on unpartitioned land without prior permission.
Later, Vincent had approached the Court again alleging violation of this order. The judge noted that, even in that case, the government’s stand was that the order could not be enforced due to law-and-order issues.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Examines Order Allowing Karthigai Deepam At Thirupparankundram Hill
Expressing strong displeasure, Justice Swaminathan remarked:
Justice Swaminathan said,
“What is this? When it comes to taking action against a church, lots of (issues) come up. When enforcing the Court’s order, your duty is to tackle the law-and-order issue and not throw the Court’s order aside,”
The Court finally directed the Chief Secretary to take a responsible and clear stand on the next date of hearing and ensure that the written response fully addresses all the concerns raised by the Court.
Read More Reports On Karthigai Deepam
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
