Madras High Court Justice GR Swaminathan on Wednesday strongly questioned Senior Advocate Vikas Singh over remarks attributed to him in media reports suggesting that the judge harboured political ambitions.
The exchange took place during the hearing of a contempt of court petition linked to the alleged failure of government officials to implement a judicial order concerning the lighting of the Karthigai deepam on the deepathon, a stone lamp pillar, situated atop the Thiruparankundram hill in Tamil Nadu. The matter arises from the case [Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS].
As Vikas Singh, appearing on behalf of the State authorities, commenced his submissions through video conferencing, Justice Swaminathan interrupted the proceedings and asked whether Singh wished to reiterate comments attributed to him during the previous day’s hearing before a Division Bench. The Court referred to media reports which quoted Singh as questioning the basis of the judge’s direction to light the ceremonial lamp and allegedly suggesting that the judge appeared to be acting as though he intended to contest elections.
Justice Swaminathan observed that he had read newspaper reports which carried these remarks and directly asked Singh to repeat them before the Court. The judge stated that the reports conveyed an impression that he was pursuing political ambitions and sought clarification on whether the senior counsel stood by those submissions.
Singh, however, responded that he was unsure about the specific remarks being referred to and later made it clear that he did not wish to repeat any such statements. Despite repeated insistence from the Court to restate the submissions allegedly made earlier, Singh declined to do so.
During the same hearing, Justice Swaminathan also turned his attention to the issue of non-compliance with court orders and questioned State Chief Secretary N Muruganandam, who had been summoned in view of an alleged pattern of disregard for judicial directions in the Thiruparankundram lamp-lighting dispute.
The judge clarified that the Chief Secretary had not been summoned to revisit or argue the merits of the original order directing the lighting of the lamp. Instead, the Court sought an explanation regarding developments following the issuance of that order and the reasons behind its alleged non-implementation.
Justice Swaminathan expressed concern over what he described as attempts by district officials to dilute or nullify a writ order passed under constitutional jurisdiction. He asked the Chief Secretary to clarify whether the concerned district collectors had acted independently or pursuant to instructions from higher authorities.
In response, Muruganandam submitted that he would seek detailed information from the officers involved and place a written response before the Court. He also assured the Court that the State had no intention of disregarding judicial orders. According to him, officers sometimes face practical difficulties, including financial constraints, law and order considerations, or situations involving conflicting judicial directions.
The Chief Secretary further informed the Court that in the instances referred to by the judge, writ appeals had already been filed and were pending adjudication. He emphasised that maintaining law and order remained the government’s highest priority and sought four weeks’ time to file a comprehensive affidavit addressing all concerns raised by the Court.
Justice Swaminathan also referred to another matter involving a litigant named Vincent, which related to a family property dispute between siblings. The Court noted that an interim order had earlier restrained construction of a church on unpartitioned land without prior approval. Subsequently, allegations of disobedience were raised, with government counsel citing law and order issues as an obstacle to enforcement.
The judge questioned this justification and remarked that enforcement of court orders could not be avoided by citing potential law and order problems. He observed that it was the responsibility of the administration to address such issues rather than disregard binding judicial directions.
Before concluding the hearing, Justice Swaminathan directed the Chief Secretary to adopt a responsible stand in the matter and ensure that the forthcoming written response comprehensively addresses all issues highlighted by the Court. The case is expected to be taken up again after the State files its reply.
Reference
1. Lamp lighting row: Justice GR Swaminathan quizzes Vikas Singh over political ambitions claim
4. Also Read: Delhi High Court Refuses to Entertain Fresh PIL on Indigo Fiasco Explained
Comments
Post a Comment