Alok Singh
On 28th July 2025, a tense courtroom exchange took place between Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Advocate Vanchinathan at the Madras High Court. The tension was over the allegation made by Advocate Vanchinatham against Justice Swaminathan.
The Advocate made serious accusations against Justice Swaminathan by allegedly claiming that the judge exhibited caste and communal prejudice in his judicial conduct on social media.
The allegations emerged after Justice Swaminathan referred to him as a “comedy piece” when Justice Vanchinathan declined to respond orally and requested the Court to issue a written order.
Now, the Court summoned him before the Division Bench presided over by Justice K. Rajasekar and Justice Swaminathan himself. The Bench questioned Vanchinathan directly about his remarks, seeking clarity on whether the allegations were being reiterated or withdrawn. Instead of providing an oral response, Vanchinathan asked the Bench to issue a written order, which elicited a sharp reply from Justice Swaminathan.
Justice Swaminathan emphasised that criticism of judicial decisions is acceptable and even welcomed, but attributing bias based on caste crosses a red line. Justice Swaminathan observed, “You have every right to criticise my judgments severely. But to ascribe caste-based motives is a different matter altogether”.
The Bench referred to specific comments by Vanchinathan, including one where he reportedly alleged that the Court had acted against a senior Dalit lawyer while treating a Brahmin senior counsel differently, claims the Court found sweeping and unfounded. Justice Swaminathan noted that such remarks were made in public fora and undermine judicial integrity and contribute to an erosion of trust..
The written order issued later recorded that Advocate Vanchinathan had appeared in person on July 25 and again on July 28. It noted that his submissions appeared to be based on the incorrect assumption that the current proceedings were connected to a separate complaint he had addressed to the Chief Justice of India and other Supreme Court judges, a link the Court categorically denied.
“We are unable to comprehend the foundation for the allegations made against this Court. We reiterate that this matter is independent of any communication with the Chief Justice of India,” the order clarified.
The Bench also explained that, given the nature of Vanchinathan’s public allegations, it was necessary, as per the principles of natural justice, to offer him an opportunity to clarify his position before considering any further action.
Meanwhile, a group of retired judges of the Madras High Court, namely Justices K. Chandru, D. Hariparanthaman, C.T. Selvam, Akbar Ali, P. Kalaiyarasan, S. Vimala, and S.S. Sundar, issued a joint statement. They emphasised that complaints against serving judges should be directed through the Chief Justice and advised the current Bench not to take independent action against Vanchinathan. The Court reacted critically to this intervention.
Justice Swaminathan expressed disappointment with the participation of Justice S.S. Sundar in the letter, calling it regrettable that retired judges were publicly offering opinions while the matter remained sub judice.
Although Justice K.K. Sasidharan’s name initially appeared among the signatories, he later withdrew support and distanced himself from the statement. The Bench ordered the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for further consideration.
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here