The Madras High Court sharply criticised TN Minister S. Reghupathy for his remark on the Thiruparankundram Karthigai Deepam issue, saying, “I conclude that Thiru. Ragupathy has given a mischievous political spin to the turn of events.”
The Madras High Court criticized a remark by Tamil Nadu’s Minister for Minerals and Mines, S. Reghupathy, concerning the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam atop the Thiruparankundram hillock, calling it mischievous and deserving of condemnation.
The court was informed that the Minister had reportedly suggested the government would block the lighting of the lamp despite judicial orders permitting it.
A report attributed to him the claim that prohibitory orders had been imposed last year to prevent the lamp being lit.
ALSO READ: Animal Sacrifice On Sacred Thiruparankundram Hill Not Permissible: Madras High Court
Taking a stern view, Justice G.R. Swaminathan said,
“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.”
The judge added that, while citizens may criticise court decisions or challenge them through appeals, they cannot act as regulatory authorities once a court has spoken.
He expressed surprise that someone who had once served as Law Minister would apparently lack this basic understanding, the Court observed,
“It is shocking that this elementary knowledge is lacking on the part of a person who held the high office of Law Minister,”
The bench also noted that the Madurai District Collector who is facing contempt proceedings over local authorities’ failure to facilitate the lamp lighting had disputed the Minister’s account.
In an affidavit, the Collector said the prohibitory orders issued during last year’s Karthigai festival were intended to control crowds and avoid law-and-order problems, not to deliberately defy court directions.
Justice Swaminathan concluded that the Minister’s remark appeared aimed at giving the matter a mischievous political spin and attracting publicity.
The court pointed out that although the Minister had said on January 6, 2026 that the Government would file an appeal against orders allowing the lamp to be lit, no appeal had been filed by the time of the hearing.
The Court stated,
“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,”
Because the District Collector contradicted the Minister’s version, the court declined to summon Reghupathy for an explanation and closed the petition seeking to make him a party to the contempt proceedings.
The order said,
“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 contempt proceedings against local authorities in Madurai for not implementing orders to light the hilltop lamp remain pending; the next hearing is scheduled for March 4.
Justice Swaminathan warned he could reopen the application against the Minister if circumstances warrant, the March 2 order stated,
“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,”
Advocate P. Subbiah represented the petitioner who initiated the contempt action. Senior Advocate V. Giri, assisted by Special Government Pleader Venkatesh Kumar, represented Madurai District Collector K.J. Praveenkumar (IAS).
Giri was supported by Additional Public Prosecutor S. Ravi for Madurai Police Commissioner J. Loganathan (IPS).
Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran, assisted by advocate V. Chandrasekar, appeared for the Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple at Thirupparankundram.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
