Ex-judges denounce attempts to impeach Jus Swaminathan of Madras HC
text_fields
New Delhi: Fifty-six former judges on Friday issued a statement denouncing the attempt by the DMK to impeach Madras High Court judge Justice G R Swaminathan, claiming it was a "brazen attempt to browbeat judges", reports PTI.
On December 1, Justice Swaminathan held that the Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple was duty-bound to light the lamp at the Deepathoon, in addition to the customary lighting near the Uchi Pillaiyar Mandapam.
The single judge bench said that doing so would not encroach upon the rights of the adjacent dargah or the Muslim community.
The order sparked a row, and on December 9, several opposition MPs, led by the DMK, submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to move a motion for the removal of the judge.
The statement claimed, "This is a brazen attempt to browbeat judges who do not fall in line with the ideological and political expectations of a particular section of society. If such an attempt is permitted to proceed, it would cut at the very roots of our democracy and the independence of the judiciary."
It said even if the reasons mentioned by the signatory MPs were taken at face value, these were inadequate to justify resorting to such a rare, exceptional and serious constitutional measure of impeachment.
"The present move is not an isolated aberration. It fits into a clear and deeply troubling pattern in our recent constitutional history, where sections of the political class have sought to discredit and intimidate the higher judiciary whenever outcomes do not align with their interests," said the statement signed by two former Supreme Court judges, five former chief justices of high courts and 49 retired high court judges.
It claimed the attempt was an attempt to weaponise impeachment as an instrument of pressure, which struck at the heart of judicial independence and the basic norms of constitutional democracy.
"The very purpose of the impeachment mechanism is to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, not to convert it into a tool of arm-twisting, signalling and retaliation," the signatories said.
"To wield the threat of removal as a means of compelling judges to conform to political expectations is to turn a constitutional safeguard into an instrument of intimidation," the statement said.