Thirupparankundram Deepam issue: Advocate General desists from granting consent to initiate criminal contempt against retired judge Hariparanthaman

Tamil Nadu Advocate General (AG) PS Raman has opted out of allowing criminal contempt of court proceedings to be initiated against retired Madras High Court judge D. Hariparanthaman for comments he made pursuant to an order passed by him against Supreme Court Justice GR Swaminathan in December 2025 in the Thirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam matter.

“I have seen the statements made (by Mr. Hariparanthaman) and can state that I personally disagree with or even disapprove of the views expressed therein,” the AG wrote. However, he withheld consent after citing the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to criticism under Section 15(1)(b) of the Infringement of Courts Act 1971.

“The comments were made by a retired Supreme Court Judge who is aware of his responsibility, without expressing any opinion as to whether his comments led to disrepute of the institution or whether the conduct of a Judge of the same nature, I deem it appropriate, in the exercise of my judicial discretion, to dismiss these cases,” the AG wrote in his quasi-judicial decision.

He, however, left open the possibility for the applicant Rangarajan Narasimhan, a Srirangam-based temple activist, to “pursue this matter by moving it directly to the Hon’ble Madras High Court, if he so desires, as is permissible under the Violation of Courts Act, 1971”. The applicant sought consent by referring to the retired judge’s interviews published on two YouTube channels on 4 and 6 December 2025.

The petitioner sent a transcript of the Tamil interviews, saying that the retired judge had said in one of the interviews, “everyone knows that he (Judge Swaminathan) is a Sanghi. He is a Sanghi, just like I am a communist.” The applicant also provided links to both YouTube interviews. The AG reviewed the interviews as well as the transcripts before issuing a detailed order.

Referring to the attorney general’s withdrawal from hearing a plea for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against retired Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju as both knew each other, Mr. Raman said Mr. Hariparanthaman did not face such embarrassment as he was known to him only as a judge and fellow lawyer before his elevation.

The AG stated that the point before him was to find out whether the two meetings amounted to degrading behavior and said: “When persons who themselves hold constitutional offices are accused of criminal disrespect for public statements regarding the conduct of the judiciary or any judge, it is desirable that the sanctioning authority exercise greater care.”

Mr. Raman continued: “I believe that the comments of dignitaries, especially those holding high constitutional positions, regarding the functioning of the judiciary or any judge should be restricted, but the same should also be considered in the context of freedom of speech and expression and especially the right to criticism.”