The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday, 2 March 2026, strongly criticised remarks attributed to Tamil Nadu Minister for Minerals and Mines S. Regupathy in connection with the hilltop lamp-lighting issue, even as it declined, for now, to summon him in the contempt proceedings.
Hearing Sub Application (MD) No. 94 of 2026 in Contempt Petition (MD) No. 3657 of 2025, Justice GR Swaminathan examined a plea seeking to implead the minister as the fourth respondent/contemnor based on a statement reportedly published in the Dinamalar daily on 7 January 2026.
During the hearing, Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran submitted that courts ought not to take cognisance of unauthenticated newspaper reports. The court described this as “a welcome suggestion,” but observed that whether the minister actually made the statement could be verified only by issuing notice to him.
Noting that Dinamalar is a well-known newspaper with wide circulation, Justice Swaminathan recorded that when queried, the Additional Advocate General stated he had no instructions from the minister on the issue.
The court made strong observations on the reported remarks, stating that the statement attributed to the minister “deserves severe condemnation.” The judge emphasised that once a matter enters the judicial domain, parties must abide by the outcome of court proceedings.
“It is not for any other authority, let alone a State Minister, to dare to say that such lighting cannot be permitted,” the order said, adding that after a verdict is pronounced, the only option available to parties is to pursue appeal or review.
The court further remarked that while judgments may be criticised, one cannot assume the role of a regulatory authority after the court has spoken. Justice Swaminathan said it was “shocking” if such elementary knowledge was lacking on the part of a person who held the high office of Law Minister.
The judge also noted that no rebuttal had been issued by the minister so far and observed that his related comments had “evoked widespread derision.” The order recorded that despite the minister’s earlier claim that the government would file an appeal against the Division Bench order dated 6 January 2026, no such appeal appeared to have been filed to date.
However, the court ultimately decided not to summon Regupathy at this stage. Justice Swaminathan said he was desisting from issuing summons because the Madurai District Collector, who authored the prohibitory order, had filed an additional affidavit clarifying that the order was not intended to frustrate the court’s earlier directions.
Quoting the Collector’s affidavit, the court recorded that the prohibitory order under Section 163 of the BNSS, 2023 was issued keeping in mind law-and-order concerns in the hillock area and “did not contemplate hindrance” to temple authorities lighting the lamp in accordance with the High Court’s earlier judgment dated 1 December 2025.
Justice Swaminathan concluded that the minister appeared to have given “a mischievous political spin to the turn of events,” while noting that the question of whether the Collector’s prohibitory order amounts to contempt remains the subject matter of the main proceedings and is sub judice.
“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,” the judge ordered, while making it clear that the court would not hesitate to reopen the application if circumstances so warranted.
The sub-application was accordingly closed.
Here’s the order passed by Justice G.R. Swaminathan at the Madurai Bench of the #MadrasHighCourt today in the contempt of court proceedings related to the Thirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam issue. pic.twitter.com/ngvrocLdk8
— Mohamed Imranullah S (@imranhindu) March 2, 2026
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
