S.Paramasivam Vs K.J.Praveenkumar (Madras High Court)
This Sub Application before the Madras High Court sought to implead Thiru S. Ragupathy, Hon’ble Minister for Minerals and Mines, Government of Tamil Nadu, based on a statement attributed to him and published in Dinamalar Daily Newspaper on 07.01.2026.
The Additional Advocate General submitted that cognizance should not be taken of unauthenticated newspaper reports. The Court observed that whether the Minister made the statement could be verified only by issuing notice and seeking his response. It was noted that Dinamalar is a well-known newspaper with wide circulation and that the report stated the Minister had given the interview at the Secretariat. When asked whether he had instructions from the Minister, the Additional Advocate General replied in the negative.
The Court observed that the statement attributed to the Minister deserved severe condemnation. It stated that when a writ court had permitted lighting the lamp atop the hill, only the Division Bench or the Supreme Court could hold otherwise. No other authority, including a State Minister, could declare that such lighting would not be permitted. Once a matter falls within the domain of the Court, parties must abide by the judicial outcome. After pronouncement of a verdict, the only available remedies are appeal or review. While judgments may be commented upon or criticised, one cannot assume a regulatory role contrary to a judicial verdict. The Court expressed shock that such elementary knowledge appeared lacking in a person who had held the office of Law Minister.
