Thirupparankundram row: ‘I cannot help feeling I have been taken for a ride,’ says Justice Swaminathan

Justice G.R. Swaminathan on Wednesday (March 18, 2026) adjourned till April 9 the hearing on contempt of court cases initiated by him in connection with the Thirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam row, following an interim stay granted by a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

Justice Swaminathan said that since the month of Karthigai had elapsed, he had suggested to the authorities that they could show symbolic respect to the court’s order to light a lamp at the newly identified Deepathoon (pillar), and still work out their legal remedies. “This option was given to give a quietus,” he said.

“It is relevant to note that in contempt proceedings, the court has a duty to issue appropriate directions for remedying or rectifying the things done in violation of the court’s order and, in that regard, the court may even take restitutive measures at any stage of the proceedings. It was in that spirit a certain suggestion was given,” the judge said.

He said the senior counsel appearing for the temple management took time specifically for deliberating on the court’s suggestion. “Since the request for adjournment came from a highly respected senior counsel, and for the purpose of considering the suggestion given by the court, there was no reason to reject the request. The adjournment was given in the face of vehement opposition by senior counsel and other counsel appearing for the petitioners,” he said.

However, Justice Swaminathan said, “Taking advantage of this window period of two weeks, Letter Patent Appeals have been filed. It is the right of the respondents (the authorities) to avail the judicial remedies open to them in law. But I cannot help feeling that I have been taken for a ride. If adjournment is sought to come back to the court with a response, and the request is accepted by the court, fairness requires that the course of action undertaken is adopted. But probably all is fair not only in love and war, but also litigation.”

The judge said that on a previous occasion, he had specifically directed that the police officers (facing contempt) should be present. “Neither Loganathan nor Inigo Divyan are present in person. One of them is on record stating that he will face the consequences,” he said.

He said the direction given by the court on December 3, 2025, was put to challenge by Madurai Collector K.J. Praveen Kumar and Commissioner of Police J. Loganathan. The LPA was dismissed by a Division Bench on December 4, 2025.

“The Division Bench had held that it is for me to test whether the non-compliance of the direction given on December 3, 2025, was wilful or not. Therefore, the contempt proceedings insofar as they pertain to the breach of the direction on December 3, 2025, will have to go on. Otherwise, I would be failing in my duty by not complying with the direction of the Division Bench. It is relevant to note that the order dismissing the LPA is yet to be challenged before the Supreme Court,” the judge said.

“So long as the order dated December 4, 2025, passed by the Division Bench in the LPA is holding good, I will have to proceed with the contempt proceedings. As already mentioned, contempt is not in respect of one order alone. Be that as it may, in as much as the Division Bench is seized of the matter and interim stay has been granted till April 8, the present proceedings stand adjourned to April 9,” he said.