Madras High Court.
Madras High Court Judge GR Swaminathan Impeachment: New Delhi — A total of 107 Members of Parliament from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and several opposition parties have submitted an impeachment motion in the Lok Sabha seeking the removal of Madras High Court judge Justice GR Swaminathan. The motion accuses the judge of bias, lack of impartiality, and decisions allegedly influenced by “a particular political ideology,” in violation of India’s secular constitutional framework.
The MPs have also alleged that Justice Swaminathan showed undue favouritism toward Senior Advocate M. Sricharan Ranganathan and other lawyers from “a particular community,” calling into question the judge’s neutrality in adjudicating sensitive matters.
Several Opposition Parties Support Motion
Signatories to the motion include senior DMK leaders T.R. Baalu, A. Raja, Kanimozhi, and Dayanidhi Maran; Congress leaders Priyanka Gandhi and Gaurav Gogoi; Samajwadi Party leaders Akhilesh Yadav and Dimple Yadav; and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, among others.
The move marks one of the rare instances of an impeachment attempt against a sitting High Court judge, a process which requires substantial parliamentary backing to even be admitted for consideration.
READ: Supreme Court’s New Rules for Mentioning, Adjournment, and Urgent Listings Come into Force
Controversy Over Karthigai Deepam Orders
The push for impeachment comes soon after a series of contentious orders by Justice Swaminathan in a dispute involving religious practices on the Thirupparankundram hillock, home to both the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah and the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple.
Devotees of the temple had approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking permission to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp atop the hillock’s deepathoon (stone lamp pillar).
Justice GR Swaminathan, Madras High Court.
On December 1, Justice Swaminathan ruled that the temple was obliged to light the lamp at the deepathoon in addition to another designated site. He held that the act would not infringe on the rights of the nearby dargah or the Muslim community.
When state officials did not comply with the order, the judge issued a fresh directive on December 3, allowing devotees themselves to light the lamp and ordering CISF protection for them.
These directions were challenged by the District Collector and City Police Commissioner before a Division Bench, which upheld the single-judge’s orders, finding “no illegality” in the directions, especially given the State’s alleged refusal to carry out the December 1 ruling. The State has since moved the Supreme Court, where the matter is now pending.
Further Proceedings Ahead
A contempt petition filed by devotees for non-compliance with the December 1 order remains pending before the High Court. Justice Swaminathan is scheduled to hear the matter on December 17.
Meanwhile, the impeachment motion has brought the judge’s conduct under unprecedented national scrutiny. The Lok Sabha Secretariat is expected to examine whether the motion meets the procedural requirements for admission.
