Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
In a strong show of solidarity, seven retired Madras High Court judges have come out in support of senior advocate S Vanchinathan, who is facing potential contempt proceedings for accusing Madras high court judge Justice GR Swaminathan of casteist and communal bias. What has raised eyebrows is that, the bench which took cognizance of the complaint includes Justice Swaminathan himself, along with Justice K Rajasekar. The judges deemed the statement contemptuous and directed Vanchinathan to appear before them on July 28 to declare whether he stands by his remarks.
The controversy erupted on July 19, when Vanchinathan’s name came up during the hearing of an unrelated case before the bench. The court flagged a representation Vanchinathan had on June 14, to Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and companion judges, requesting an inquiry into Justice Swaminathan’s conduct. Several legal professionals and activists have since questioned how the judge came into possession of a complaint that was meant for the Supreme Court.
Calling the move contemptuous, the bench then summoned Vanchinathan to appear before them on July 24. During this hearing, the court posed a pointed question: “Whether you, S. Vanchinathan, stand by your imputation of caste bias on the part of Justice G.R. Swaminathan in the discharge of his judicial duties?”, demanding a reply by 1.15 pm on July 28.
Here is what is brewing inside the legal fraternity of Tamil Nadu.
The letter in question, sent by the People’s Rights Protection Centre and signed by Vanchinathan as its state coordinator, makes 15 allegations against Justice Swaminathan. It alleged a disturbing pattern of preferential treatment, caste bias, and ideological partisanship- in favour of a specific group of advocates, “particularly those from the Brahmin community and those aligned with right-wing ideologies.”
The letter further accused the judge of allowing his political leanings to influence judicial reasoning. “Several rulings and observations by His Lordship reflect a discernible ideological leaning toward right-wing political philosophy. While judges may hold personal beliefs, these must not influence judicial reasoning, particularly in cases involving fundamental and constitutional rights or minority protections,” the letter stated.
The letter pointed to Justice Swaminathan’s presence at a book launch on April 2, 2024, alongside BJP politician H Raja and right-wing commentator Rangaraj Pandey, and flagged comments made allegedly ‘mocking the Dravidian model of governance’. It accused him of impersonating former chief minister M Karunanidhi, and criticising him for not knowing Kanchi Shankaracharya.”
On the controversial Lavanya suicide case, the letter said Justice Swaminathan “emphasised the alleged religious conversion angle” and transferred the case to the CBI. A later CBI probe found no evidence of forced conversion. “His Lordship’s communally charged narrative,” the letter said, caused “irreparable harm.”
Lavanya was a 17-year-old girl who died by suicide on January 19, 2022. She was a student of the Sacred Hearts Higher Secondary School in Michaelpatti of Thanjavur. It was alleged that the authorties of a Christian school she studied in, forced her to convert and she died by suicide due to their harassment. Though the BJP and right wing groups touted the conversion angle, a CBI probe ruled it out. Justice Swaminathan has heard the petition of Lavanya’s father seeking a CB-CID inquiry into his daughter’s death.
Another serious allegation involved comments reportedly made during proceedings related to the appointment of non-Brahmin priests. Vanchinathan alleged that the judge “openly identified himself as a Smartha Brahmin in court” and questioned whether non-Brahmins were fit to serve as temple priests.
Smartha Brahmins are a denomination of Brahmins within Hinduism who follow the Smarta tradition.
The letter alleged a pattern of biased judicial conduct by Justice Swaminathan, leading to discomfort and apprehension among advocates, particularly those from marginalized communities.
It urged the Supreme Court to conduct a formal inquiry stating that Justice GR Swaminathan's actions blur the line between judicial function and ideological activism.
On July 19, the division bench summoned Vanchinathan to appear in court. The bench, while hearing an unrelated appeal, observed that Vanchinathan had entered appearance by filing a vakalat for one of the parties.
While hearing the matter, the bench took note of Vanchinathan's vakalat filing and, in the course of reviewing the record, the bench brought up the complaint written by People’s Rights Protection Centre. The bench then issued a summons directing Vanchinathan to appear before it in person.
On appearing before the court in response to the summons on July 24, Vanchinathan clarified that he was no longer representing the party in that case and had already returned the case papers.
Despite this clarification, the court noted that Vanchinathan’s conduct “prima facie amounted to criminal contempt of court”, and refused to close the matter.
Recalling Vanchinathan’s prior suspension by the Bar Council of India, the bench remarked, “Though he was expected to improve his conduct after revocation of the suspension, it appears that he has not changed his ways. He continues to slander the judiciary. Social media is replete with his videos… It is one thing to criticise judgments but entirely another to cast aspersions on judges.”
Since Vanchinathan insisted that the court’s question be provided in writing, the bench formally directed the Registry to serve him with a specific query: “Do you, S Vanchinathan, stand by your imputation of caste bias on the part of Justice GR Swaminathan in the discharge of his judicial duties?”
The court scheduled the matter for in-person reply on July 28 at 1.15 pm, giving Vanchinathan a deadline to state his position.
The bench further clarified that the issue was not merely about protecting the reputation of individual judges but about preserving public faith in the judiciary.
“While fair, temperate, and good faith criticism is permissible,” the bench observed, “allegations of partiality, bias, or improper motives strike at the very heart of judicial integrity and are treated with particular seriousness.”
At a public event held on July 26, S Vanchinathan clarified his position on the letter which is now at the heart of the contempt proceedings. He reiterated that the letter was submitted only to the Chief Justice of India and companion judges, and not circulated otherwise.
“I didn’t give that letter to anyone else, just to the Supreme Court,” he said.
Explaining the chain of events, he said that in another matter – pertaining to an appointment of a professor at Tamil University, Thanjavur – a single judge had ruled in the professor’s favour. Following that, an appeal was filed. Although Vanchinathan had initially filed a caveat in the case, he later handed it over to another advocate.
“That case came up for hearing last week. The bench asked me to appear. I went and clarified that I am no longer handling the matter. Then they brought up my petition to the Supreme Court and asked if I still stood by what I wrote. I requested more details and said I needed the question to be given in writing. But the judge said I was being cowardly by not answering immediately.”
Vanchinathan said he stood firm on responding in writing, rather than giving a verbal answer on the spot.
“They insisted I respond then and there, but I insisted again that it must be in writing, and that I would file a written statement,” he added.
He also expressed surprise that the scanned copy of his petition was circulating on social media.
“I had no idea it had been shared. I never made it public,” he said, and added that he has filed a police complaint regarding the leak.
In a letter written on July 26, the eight former judges – justices K Chandru, D Hariparanthaman, CT Selvam, Akbar Ali, P Kalaiyarasan, S Vimala, KK Sasidharan and SS Sundar — appealed to the division bench not to initiate any action against the advocate at this stage.
In the letter, Justice Chandru, writing on behalf of the others, said that it was the Supreme Court’s mandate that if anyone wants to send a petition against a judge's conduct, it should be sent to the Chief Justice of India directly.
The letter goes on to explain that only the Chief Justice of India is empowered to initiate an internal investigation: “If and when the Chief Justice of India is of the opinion that it requires an investigation into the truthfulness or otherwise, he can constitute an ‘in-house inquiry’ into those allegations made against the judge.”
The letter also notes that this process is consistently followed: “The same procedure has also been followed in the recent case of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court.”
The judges argued that since the CJI has not initiated any inquiry based on Vanchinathan’s letter, any contempt proceedings by the High Court would be premature. “Hence, we are of the opinion that in the absence of any such action taken by the Chief Justice of India on the petition sent by the Advocate, it will be premature for the learned judges to initiate action against the lawyer concerned.”
“We appeal to the learned judges to give up any action at this stage and also to await any decision to be taken by the Chief Justice of India in the petition sent by Advocate Vanchinathan.”
The letter closes by stating that the appeal is motivated by institutional concern, not personal interest: “We are issuing this appeal only in the interest of the judicial institution and we have no other interest in the matter.”
However, justice Sasidharan dissociated himself from the letter.
