INDIA Bloc MPs Move Impeachment Motion Against Madras High Court Judge Over Alleged Misconduct and Bias

MPs flag his handling of the preventive detention challenge filed by YouTuber Savukku Shankar's mother.

Chennai:

In a dramatic escalation, over 100 INDIA bloc MPs have moved an impeachment motion against Madras High Court judge Justice G R Swaminathan, accusing him of "proven misbehaviour and gross misconduct."

The MPs had previously submitted a 13-point representation to the President and Chief Justice of India on August 12, but citing "no action" taken and what they describe as "continuous communal bias" by the judge, they have now formally initiated impeachment proceedings. NDTV has obtained access to this signed document.

The MPs contend that these allegations raise significant questions regarding impartiality, transparency and secular functioning within the judiciary. The document makes no reference to Justice Swaminathan's verdict in the Thiruparankudram case.

The representation alleges that Justice Swaminathan selectively prioritized cases, giving preference to a specific group of advocates, particularly from the Brahmin community and those aligned with right-wing ideologies. The MPs also claim irregularities in his handling of first appeals and appointment of amicus curiae, suggesting favoritism toward a specific circle of advocates.

They further allege "preferential treatment" given to Senior Advocate M Sricharan Rangarajan between April and July 2024, claiming urgent matters were bypassed to accommodate him.

One central allegation concerns the judge's May 2024 order permitting angapradakshinam in Karur - a ritual where devotees roll over plantain leaves discarded after others have eaten on them. The MPs argue this violated a 2015 Division Bench judgment that prohibited the practice as "inhuman." They assert that by overruling this earlier judgment, he committed "judicial indiscipline." A Division Bench later overturned his order, specifically citing judicial indiscipline.

The document also alleges that a politically sensitive petition challenging amendments regarding vice-chancellor appointment powers in 18 state universities was strategically filed during vacation court to ensure it would come before Justice Swaminathan.

According to the MPs, he granted an urgent stay despite the Advocate General's requests to defer the case until after vacation, as the State needed time to file a comprehensive response given the significant administrative and constitutional implications, and a related Supreme Court pronouncement was pending.

The MPs claim that during the pronouncement, "his Lordship muted the courtroom mic," raising transparency concerns. They also note that the judgment contained "disparaging remarks" about a senior advocate, suggesting political undertones.

Regarding the Savukku Shankar detention case, the MPs highlight that Justice Swaminathan recorded that "two highly placed individuals approached him requesting that he shouldn't decide the detention order on merits," but neither identified them nor initiated contempt proceedings. They argue this non-disclosure "raises serious concerns about transparency and judicial integrity."

The communication also references an FIR filed on December 9, 2021, with a quashing petition filed the next day, and the judge quashing the FIR on December 14, 2021, without allowing sufficient time for investigation. The MPs note that the Supreme Court later criticized this haste as "premature and procedurally flawed," suggesting partiality toward an individual with political affiliations.

They contrast this with derogatory remarks in a case involving a Catholic priest, where he referred to them as "Crypto-Christians" - comments the MPs describe as irrelevant, inflammatory and disrespectful.

The MPs quote an order where Justice Swaminathan wrote: "I compliment Shri K Annamalai, the State BJP President, for having taken up the cause. He has played the role of a watchdog in a democracy. But for him, the matter wouldn't have come to light." They argue this "reflects a lack of detachment and creates a perception that certain politicians enjoy favour or recognition from his Lordship."

They cite his speech at a book release event alongside right-wing figures H Raja and Rangaraj Pandey, where he allegedly mocked the Dravidian model and impersonated former Chief Minister Karunanidhi. His remarks connecting constitutional validity to India's demographic profile and "Bharathiya Dharma and Bharathiya Sambrathayam" were characterized as majoritarian and divisive.

Regarding the Tamil Thai Vaazhthu - Shankaracharya case, the MPs quote his observation supporting the Kanchi Shankaracharya sitting during the Tamil Thai Vaazhthu: "Since Tamil Thai Vaazhthu is a prayer song, a sanyasi is certainly justified in sitting in a state of meditation. It was his way of expressing his reverence and respect for Mother Tamil." They argue this undermines public expectations regarding the anthem.

In a dispute involving 80 Adi Dravidar (Dalit) families excluded from temple festivities, they allege he appointed Hindu ideological leaders, including VHP members, as mediators, excluding secular voices - "raising concerns about religious favouritism and judicial partiality."

Regarding the Lavanya suicide case, the MPs claim he emphasized a religious conversion angle and transferred the case to the CBI, but later CBI findings ruled out conversion, exposing what they call a "communal narrative." They argue this "fallacy coupled with predilection of his Lordship's claims highlights the damage caused by his communally charged narrative."

The communication states that in quashing FIRs against Hindu activist Rangarajan Narasimhan, he made ideological observations undermining the HR&CE framework. They further reference a 2025 event where Justice Swaminathan allegedly explained "how Sanatana Dharma can save Vedic Brahmins from a murder case," suggesting such interpretations place Vedic law above statutory law.

They also note this claim was accompanied by impersonation and false evidence, stating: "The said act would amount to impersonating the real accused and punishable for giving false information to a public servant and fabricating false evidence. This injudicious interpretation of law casts a serious shadow on the competence of the learned judge discharging his judicial functions, who invariably puts the law of the Vedas at a higher pedestal."

The MPs have included links to several videos to substantiate their allegations about his public conduct and speeches. They assert these actions "violate the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life" and have urged the initiation of an inquiry to protect the "image, reputation and glory of the judiciary."

Justice G R Swaminathan has yet to respond to these allegations.