Bias To Judicial Indiscipline: Why Opposition MPs Want Justice GR Swaminathan Impeached

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 what they call "proven misbehaviour and gross misconduct."

The MPs say they had earlier submitted a 13-point representation to the President and Chief Justice of India on August 12, but with "no action" taken and with what they describe as "continuous communal bias" on the part of the judge, they have now formally triggered impeachment proceedings. NDTV has gained access to this crucial signed document.

The MPs say the allegations raise serious questions on impartiality, transparency and secular functioning of the judiciary. Additionally, there is no mention of Justice Swaminathan's verdict in the Thiruparankudram case.

Preferential Listings, Issue And Favouritism

The representation accuses Justice Swaminathan of selectively prioritising cases. One allegation states that he prioritised listings and time slots for a specific group of advocates, particularly from the Brahmin community and those aligned with right-wing ideologies. The MPs also allege irregularities in the handling of first appeals and the appointment of amicus curiae, saying he favoured a specific circle of advocates.

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

Angapradakshinam Order And Judicial Discipline

One of the central charges concerns his May 2024 order permitting angapradakshinam in Karur - a ritual where devotees roll over plantain leaves discarded after others have eaten on them.

The MPs say this violated a 2015 Division Bench judgment that banned the practice as "inhuman." They allege that by overruling the earlier judgment, he committed "judicial indiscipline."

A Division Bench later set aside his order, specifically citing judicial indiscipline.

Vice-Chancellor Appointments Stay And The Muted Microphone

The document alleges that a politically sensitive petition challenging amendments to transfer the power to appoint vice-chancellors in 18 state universities was filed strategically during the vacation court so that it would come before Justice Swaminathan.

According to the MPs, he heard the matter urgently and granted a stay despite requests from the Advocate General to defer the case until after the vacation, because the State needed time to file a detailed response, given the large administrative and constitutional implications, and a connected Supreme Court pronouncement was pending.

During the pronouncement, the MPs say "his Lordship muted the courtroom mic", raising concerns about transparency. They also point out that the judgment contained "disparaging remarks" about a senior advocate, suggesting political overtones.

Savukku Shankar Detention Case

The MPs flag his handling of the preventive detention challenge filed by YouTuber Savukku Shankar's mother. They note that Justice Swaminathan recorded that "two highly placed individuals approached him requesting that he shouldn't decide the detention order on merits", but he neither identified them nor initiated contempt.

They say this non-disclosure "raises serious concerns about transparency and judicial integrity."

FIR Quashing For BJP-Affiliated Influencer

The communication cites the FIR filed on December 9, 2021, the quashing petition filed the next day, and the judge quashing the FIR on December 14, 2021, without time for investigation.

The MPs note that the Supreme Court later criticised this haste as "premature and procedurally flawed."

They say this suggests partiality towards a person with political affiliations.

Derogatory Remarks In Catholic Priest Case

In contrast, they highlight derogatory remarks in the case involving a Catholic priest, where he referred to them as "Crypto-Christians", calling the comments irrelevant, inflammatory and disrespectful.

Praise for BJP Leader In Passport Case

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."

This, they say, "reflects a lack of detachment and creates a perception that certain politicians enjoy favour or recognition from his Lordship."

Political Remarks At Public Event

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

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 say this undermines public expectations regarding the anthem.

Temple Mediation

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."

Lavanya Suicide Case

The MPs say he emphasised 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 say this "fallacy coupled with predilection of his Lordship's claims highlights the damage caused by his communally charged narrative."

HR&CE Cases and the Vedas Comment

The communication says that in quashing FIRs against Hindu activist Rangarajan Narasimhan, he made ideological observations undermining the HR&CE framework.

They further cite a 2025 event where Justice Swaminathan allegedly explained "how Sanatana Dharma can save Vedic Brahmins from a murder case," claiming such interpretations place Vedic law above statutory law.

They also note that this claim was accompanied by impersonation and false evidence.

"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," they said.

Video Evidence Provided

The MPs have also included links to several videos to substantiate their allegations about his public conduct and speeches.

Call for Action

The MPs say all these actions "violate the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life." They have urged the initiation of an inquiry and action to protect the "image, reputation and glory of the judiciary."

Justice G R Swaminathan is yet to respond.