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

Tamil Nadu Advocate General (A-G) P.S. Raman has desisted from granting consent to initiate criminal contempt of court proceedings against Madras High Court retired judge D. Hariparanthaman for his comments against Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the High Court pursuant to an order passed by the latter on the Thirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam issue in December 2025.

The A-G wrote: “I have seen the statements made (by Mr. Hariparanthaman) and I may state that I do not personally concur or even approve of the views expressed therein.” Nevertheless, he desisted from granting consent, as required under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, after referring to the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right of criticism.

“Since the statements have been made by a retired Judge of the High Court who knows his responsibility, without expressing any opinion on whether his comments amounted to bringing the institution to disrepute, or whether the same attribute motives to a conduct of a Judge, exercising my judicial discretion, I deem it fit to drop these proceedings,” the A-G wrote in his quasi judicial order.

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

Submitting a transcript of those Tamil interviews, the applicant said, the retired judge had said, in one of the interviews, that “everyone knows that he (Justice Swaminathan) is a Sanghi. Like how I am a communist, he is a Sanghi.” The applicant had also submitted the links to both YouTube interviews. The A-G perused the interviews and also the transcripts before passing a detailed order.

Referring to an instance of the Attorney General having recused from hearing a plea to grant consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against retired Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju since they both were known to each other, Mr. Raman said, he does not face any such embarassment since Mr. Hariparanthaman was known to him only as a judge and a fellow lawyer before his elevation.

Stating the point for consideration before him was to find out whether the two interviews amount to a contemptuous conduct, the A-G said: “When persons who have themselves been holding constitutional posts are accused of criminal contempt for public statements made by them regarding the conduct of the judiciary or any particular Judge, more care is desired to be taken by the sanctioning authority.”

Mr. Raman went on to state: “While I believe that eminent persons, particularly those who have been in high constitutional posts, need to be restrained in their comments about the functioning of the judiciary or of any particular Judge, the same has also got to be viewed in the context of freedom of speech and expression, and in particular, the right of criticism.”