In a major development, more than 100 MPs from the INDIA bloc have submitted an impeachment motion against Madras High Court judge Justice G. R. Swaminathan. They have accused him of “serious misconduct” and “wrong behaviour.”
The MPs claim they had earlier sent a 13-point complaint to the President and the Chief Justice of India on August 12. Since no action was taken and they believe the judge has continued to show “communal bias,” they decided to move ahead with the impeachment request. According to them, the allegations raise concerns about fairness, transparency, and the secular nature of the judiciary. They also pointed out that his judgment in the Thiruparankundram case was not mentioned.
Preferential Case Listings and Alleged Favoritism
The MPs accuse Justice Swaminathan of giving certain cases priority based on who the advocates were. They claim he favoured lawyers from the Brahmin community and those with right-wing leanings, giving them better time slots and faster hearings. The complaint also mentions irregularities in handling first appeals and in appointing amici curiae, suggesting that he consistently benefited a particular group of advocates. They further allege that Senior Advocate M. Sricharan Rangarajan received special treatment between April and July 2024, with urgent matters being delayed to accommodate him.
Angapradakshinam Order and Judicial Discipline
Another key allegation relates to his May 2024 order allowing angapradakshinam in Karur, a ritual where devotees roll over discarded plantain leaves used by others. The MPs argue this went against a 2015 Division Bench ruling that had banned the practice as “inhuman.” They claim that by overturning the earlier judgment, Justice Swaminathan showed “judicial indiscipline.” Later, a Division Bench nullified his order, explicitly citing judicial indiscipline in its decision.
Vice-Chancellor Appointment Stay and Muted Microphone
The MPs allege that a politically sensitive petition on vice-chancellor appointments in 18 state universities was filed strategically during the vacation court to come before Justice Swaminathan. He reportedly heard the matter urgently and granted a stay despite the Advocate General requesting a delay, citing the state’s need for time to respond.
They also claim that during the hearing, the judge muted the courtroom microphone, raising transparency concerns. The judgment allegedly contained disparaging remarks about a senior advocate, suggesting political bias.
Savukku Shankar Detention Case
In the preventive detention case filed by YouTuber Savukku Shankar’s mother, Justice Swaminathan recorded that “two highly placed individuals” asked him not to decide on the merits. The MPs say he neither identified these individuals nor initiated contempt proceedings, raising questions about transparency and judicial integrity.
FIR Quashing for BJP-Affiliated Influencer
The MPs highlighted that an FIR filed on December 9, 2021, was quashed by Justice Swaminathan on December 14, without proper time for investigation. The Supreme Court later criticized this as “premature and procedurally flawed,” suggesting possible partiality toward politically connected individuals.
Derogatory Remarks in Catholic Priest Case
In a case involving a Catholic priest, the judge allegedly referred to the clergy as “Crypto-Christians,” which the MPs called irrelevant, inflammatory, and disrespectful.
Praise for BJP Leader in Passport Case
Justice Swaminathan reportedly praised BJP State President K. Annamalai in a judgment, stating that the matter wouldn’t have come to light without him. MPs say this shows a lack of detachment and raises concerns about favoritism toward certain politicians.
Political Remarks at Public Events
The judge allegedly mocked the Dravidian model and impersonated former Chief Minister Karunanidhi during a book release event with right-wing figures. His comments linking constitutional validity to India’s demographic profile were described by MPs as majoritarian and divisive.
Tamil Thai Vaazhthu – Shankaracharya Case
Justice Swaminathan reportedly supported a Shankaracharya sitting during the Tamil Thai Vaazhthu, stating it was a form of respect. MPs say this undermines public expectations regarding the national anthem.
Temple Mediation
In a dispute involving 80 Dalit families excluded from temple festivities, the judge allegedly appointed Hindu ideological leaders, including VHP members, as mediators, excluding secular voices. MPs say this shows religious favoritism and judicial bias.
Lavanya Suicide Case
The judge emphasized a religious conversion angle and transferred the case to the CBI. The CBI later found no evidence of conversion, which MPs say highlights a communally charged narrative.
HR&CE Cases and Vedas Comment
In FIR quashing for Hindu activist Rangarajan Narasimhan, the judge reportedly made ideological observations favoring Vedic law over statutory law. MPs allege this included impersonation and false evidence, casting doubt on his judicial competence.
Video Evidence and Call for Action
The MPs have submitted video evidence of his speeches and conduct. They argue his actions violate the “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life” and have requested a formal inquiry to protect the judiciary’s reputation.
Justice’s Response
Justice G. R. Swaminathan has not yet responded to these allegations.
