People who don’t believe in spiritual gurus are ‘rascals’: Madras HC judge
text_fields
Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court has sparked fresh controversy following remarks made at a public event hosted by a spiritual organisation in Tamil Nadu, where he criticised self-described rationalists and defended the role of spiritual gurus. He asserted that individuals who reject the idea of spiritual gurus as manifestations of God are “rascals, fools and barbarians,” India Today reported.
Addressing the gathering, Justice Swaminathan said that some rationalists in Tamil Nadu deride believers who regard a Guru as a manifestation of God.
He said that some people called them rascals, fools and barbarians because they saw the Guru as a form of God, and added that those who made such remarks were themselves rascals, fools and barbarians.
He emphasised the importance of spiritual guidance, asserting that courage and resilience during difficult times can be strengthened through the grace of a Guru.
The judge also referred to his recent interaction with a yogi near Tenkasi, describing discussions about the concept of a spiritual “aura” that, he claimed, could help devotees overcome personal weaknesses through proximity to spiritual masters. Noting that he has four years of judicial service remaining, Justice Swaminathan said he felt compelled to act “more courageously” going forward.
His remarks come amid ongoing scrutiny over earlier controversies. Recently, he faced criticism after directing that a traditional lamp be lit at the Deepathoon near a historic dargah in Thiruparankundram, alongside customary temple locations. The Tamil Nadu government objected to the order, triggering political backlash. More than 100 Members of Parliament subsequently moved an impeachment motion against him, alleging bias, lack of impartiality and conduct inconsistent with the secular framework of the judiciary.
Justice Swaminathan has previously drawn criticism for public comments perceived as blending personal religious beliefs with judicial responsibilities, including statements praising the Vedas and questioning aspects of the Constitution’s origins and relevance.
