Contempt and writ proceedings were closed after unconditional apologies and undertakings against future violations.

S. Balusamy filed a writ petition seeking a peace committee meeting and postponement of a temple-festival Mulaipari event scheduled for 28–29 July 2026, alleging that it was proposed without including him and 26 other families.

The writ petition referred to alleged conduct by private respondents; the later contempt order recorded an allegation that respondents had played songs despite an order prohibiting them from doing so.

Balusamy then initiated contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with the High Court’s order dated 27 July 2026. On 23 September 2026, the Court directed respondents 2 to 5 in the contempt petition to appear and file affidavits explaining whether they had played the songs.

On 8 October 2026, those respondents appeared and filed affidavits tendering unconditional apologies.

1. Whether respondents 2 to 5 had wilfully disobeyed the High Court’s earlier order so as to warrant further action in contempt.

2. Whether the contempt petition and the connected writ petition could be closed after the respondents tendered unconditional apologies and undertook not to repeat the alleged violations.

The contempt petition was brought under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The writ petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court did not set out or apply any detailed statutory test, precedent, or general contempt doctrine in its order. Its stated basis for disposing of the proceedings was the respondents’ unconditional apologies and their assurance that they would not repeat the alleged violations.

The Court required the respondents to explain, by affidavit and in person, whether they had played songs contrary to the earlier order.

When they appeared, tendered unconditional apologies, and stated that they would not repeat the conduct alleged by the petitioner, the Court recorded those undertakings and considered them sufficient to close both proceedings. It did not make a separate express finding on whether contempt had been wilful.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.