Madras High Court Justice GR Swaminathan on Wednesday, 17 December 2025, strongly questioned Senior Advocate Vikas Singh over remarks allegedly made by him suggesting that the judge had political ambitions, during the hearing of a contempt of court petition connected to the Thirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam dispute.
The contempt proceedings arise from an earlier order passed by Justice Swaminathan directing the lighting of the traditional Karthigai deepam on the Deepathoon situated atop the Thirupparankundram hill in Tamil Nadu. The contempt plea alleges that officials of the DMK government (state) failed to comply with the court’s directions.
When Vikas Singh, appearing for the State authorities, began his submissions through video conferencing, Justice Swaminathan interrupted him and sought clarification on certain statements attributed to Singh in media reports of the previous day’s hearing.
The Court referred to Singh’s earlier submissions questioning the basis of the judge’s order permitting the lighting of the lamp. According to reports published by Bar & Bench, Singh had allegedly remarked, “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 raised the issue, Singh responded that he did not understand what the judge was referring to. The judge then clarified that he had personally read the newspaper reports mentioning 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. The judge, however, continued to press the issue and asked, “Would you mind repeating the words uttered yesterday before the division bench before me right now?”
Singh declined and replied, “No. I don’t want to.”
Chief Secretary Questioned Over Non-Compliance
During the same hearing, Justice Swaminathan also questioned the State Chief Secretary, N Muruganandam, seeking an explanation for the alleged failure of district-level officers to implement the court’s order regarding the lighting of the lamp at Thiruparankundram.
The Chief Secretary had been summoned after the Court observed what it described as a recurring pattern of non-compliance with judicial orders in matters related to the Thiruparankundram dispute. However, the Court clarified that Muruganandam was not being called upon to argue the correctness of the original order.
Justice Swaminathan stated, “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 said he viewed seriously the suggestion that district collectors may have deliberately attempted to bypass or nullify the writ order passed under constitutional authority. He asked the Chief Secretary to clarify whether the collectors acted independently or on 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 gather information from the concerned officers and submit a detailed written explanation. He assured the Court that the State government had no intention of disobeying judicial orders.
He explained that government officers sometimes face genuine challenges such as lack of funds, law-and-order concerns, or situations involving 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 added that maintaining public order was the government’s top priority and sought four weeks’ time to file a comprehensive written response.
Court Cites Earlier Case, Expresses Displeasure
Justice Swaminathan also referred to another case involving a litigant named Vincent, relating to a family property dispute between brothers. The Court recalled passing an interim order restraining the construction of a church on unpartitioned land without prior permission.
The judge noted that when the order was allegedly violated and the matter was brought back before the Court, the government had again taken the stand that enforcement was not possible due to law-and-order issues.
Expressing strong displeasure, Justice Swaminathan remarked, “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 directed the Chief Secretary to take a clear and responsible stand on the next date of hearing and to ensure that the written response comprehensively addresses all concerns raised by the Court.
The matter was adjourned for further hearing.
Source: Law Chakra
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
