The court made the observation while taking strong exception to government pleaders failing to abide by court orders directing them to file affidavits and counter affidavits on behalf of the State. 

The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, before whom a contempt plea relating to filling up teacher posts in aided colleges came for hearing, was aghast at the Special Government Pleader making the same submission that he had made during the earlier hearing and obtained a four-week adjournment. 

When the matter was last taken up on March 17, it was submitted on behalf of the State that most of the 567 vacancies had already been filled up and sought a short time to file a comprehensive affidavit, the Chief Justice pointed out. “Despite four weeks being granted, no affidavit is forthcoming and the same submission is repeated on behalf of the State,” he said. 

However, the court granted three more weeks to enable the State government file a comprehensive affidavit in this regard. Then the Chief Justice added, “The State is also reminded that this is a contempt petition directed against individual contemnors.” 

The Madras High Court dismissed a plea seeking to reschedule the festivities that could not be held at the Sri Rangam temple due to COVID-19 lockdown last year. 

When a contempt plea in this regard came for hearing, the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said: “For reasons beyond the control of all concerned, certain religious festivities could not be held. For good or bad, the festivities cannot be rescheduled… That ought to be the end of the matter with a quiet prayer on the lips,” the Chief justice said. 

The petitioner, Rangarajan Narasimhan, appearing party-in-person had moved the contempt plea citing the failure of HR&CE Department to abide by the order issued on March 12, which was disposed of with the observation that the relevant festivities that had not been conducted should be conducted as expeditiously as possible without undue delay by choosing appropriate auspicious dates. 

However, taking into account the HR&CE Commissioner’s submission that there was no scope for conducting such festival at a later date as the time for organising a particular festival has passed, the bench said, “It has also been indicated in the applications that appropriate religious measures have been suggested for atonement or the like.” 

Further, holding that the relevant order of March 12 did not mandate the compulsory conduct of the festivities that had been missed in the wake of the pandemic, the bench pointed out that all that it implied was the festivities would be conducted at a later date to the extent possible under the religious customs. 

“If the religious heads or resident priests are of the opinion that festivities which have been missed out cannot be conducted at a later date and some form of atonement would do, so be it,” said the court. 

The petitioner’s PIL was based on the grievance that several of the compulsory festivities that had to be conducted at various temples, but could not be held because of the raging pandemic in the last year, had to be rescheduled or appropriate religious measures taken in such regard.