Justice Swaminathan favoured Brahmin and Hindutva advocates: INDIA bloc writes to President, CJI
text_fields
The Madras High Court judge Justice G.R. Swaminathan, whose order in a temple–and–dargah dispute became controversial, has reportedly been accused of favouring a certain group of advocates who are Brahmins and those linked to right-wing politics, as letters sent to the President and the Chief Justice of India four months ago seeking his removal by MPs from the INDIA bloc alleged his actions reflected a discernible ideological leaning towards right-wing political philosophy.
The letters, dated August 11 and submitted separately but carrying identical concerns, were addressed to President Droupadi Murmu and then Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and they raised apprehensions about the judge’s conduct during his tenure on the Madurai Bench, while also alleging that his approach had undermined expectations of judicial neutrality and secular responsibility, according to The Hindu.
The MPs argued that his pattern of courtroom administration had created an impression of preferential treatment, as they claimed he frequently prioritised case listings and hearings for a small group of advocates, especially those belonging to the Brahmin community or those associated with ideological tendencies aligned to the Hindu right wing.
The correspondence, which surfaced months before the Opposition’s formal move in Parliament to initiate a motion seeking his removal, detailed several instances that the MPs believed illustrated a lack of impartiality, and it suggested that his conduct amounted to serious misbehaviour capable of eroding institutional credibility.
They noted that such perceived favouritism in case management risked reinforcing caste-based privilege within the legal system, while also shaping a broader public perception that judicial decisions were being influenced by ideological affinity rather than by constitutional principles.
Scrutiny over the judge’s decisions intensified after his recent direction to the authorities of the Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Thirupparankundram, where he ordered that the Karthigai Deepam lamp be lit on a pillar located near a dargah atop the hill.
They maintained that although judges may hold personal beliefs, such perspectives should not seep into judicial reasoning, particularly in matters involving fundamental rights and the security of minority interests, as any such influence could compromise the delicate balance that the judiciary is expected to uphold.
The MPs also cited examples from earlier cases to support their accusations, including a petition concerning religious practices at a Karur temple, where the judge allowed the conduct of ‘Annathanam’ and ‘Angapradakshinam’ despite an earlier Division Bench ruling that had prohibited these practices on grounds of human dignity.
