Justice GR Swaminathan then questioned Vikas Singh about remarks allegedly made by him against the judge during the previous day’s hearing.
Published Dec 17, 2025 | 8:25 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 17, 2025 | 8:25 PM
Madras High Court. (Wikimedia)
Synopsis: The Chief Secretary requested four weeks’ time to file a detailed response. Emphasising that a proper explanation must be given for failure to comply with court orders and questioning why judicial directions were not respected, the judge adjourned the case to 9 January for further hearing.
The contempt of court case related to the Thirupparankundram issue came up for hearing on Wednesday, 17 December, before Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench of Madras High Court.
During the hearing, Madurai City Police Commissioner Lokanathan, Deputy Commissioner Inigo Divyan, and the District Collector appeared in person before the court. The Chief Secretary to the Tamil Nadu Government appeared through video conferencing.
At the outset, senior advocate Vikas Singh submitted that an appeal related to the matter is currently being heard by a Division Bench comprising two judges, and therefore sought time in the present contempt proceedings.
Justice GR Swaminathan then questioned Vikas Singh about remarks allegedly made by him against the judge during the previous day’s hearing. When Vikas Singh remained silent, the judge asked whether he had stated that the judge intended to contest elections and directed him to repeat what he had said earlier.
Following this, the judge expressed strong displeasure and questioned the Chief Secretary on why the court’s orders had not been implemented. In response, the Chief Secretary stated that court orders were being duly followed and that, considering the law and order situation arising from the impugned order, an appeal had been filed and the matter was under consideration.
Justice Swaminathan, however, observed that citing law and order concerns cannot be a valid justification for non-compliance with judicial orders. He further pointed out that orders issued by him earlier in the Dindigul and Kanniyakumari cases had also not been implemented and sought an explanation for the same.
The Chief Secretary requested four weeks’ time to file a detailed response. Emphasising that a proper explanation must be given for failure to comply with court orders and questioning why judicial directions were not respected, the judge adjourned the case to 9 January for further hearing.
On 1 December, a Single Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan of the high court had observed that the temple was duty-bound to light the lamp at Deepathoon, besides lighting near the Uchchipillaiyar Mandapam. The court also added that the lighting of the lamp would not encroach upon the rights of the Dargah or the Muslim community.
The judge passed another order on 3 December after the earlier directive was not implemented. Justice Swaminathan directed the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), deployed at the court, to ensure the protection of the devotees.
However, the police prevented the bid, citing prohibitory orders promulgated considering the law and order situation.
(With inputs from Subash Chandra Bose)
