In a sharply worded appeal, the retired judges said the move to initiate impeachment proceedings against a sitting High Court judge for discharging his judicial functions strikes at the very foundation of constitutional democracy and judicial independence. They warned that allowing such efforts to proceed would have a chilling effect on the judiciary and embolden political intimidation of judges whose decisions do not align with particular ideological or political expectations.
The statement emphasised that impeachment is a rare and exceptional constitutional mechanism meant to preserve the integrity of the judiciary, not to be deployed as a tool of pressure or retaliation. Even if the allegations cited by the signatory MPs were taken at face value, the former judges asserted that they fell woefully short of the threshold required to justify such an extreme step.
Drawing from constitutional history, the judges recalled the period of the Emergency, describing it as a dark chapter marked by political overreach and attempts to discipline judges who refused to “toe the line”. They referred to the supersession of three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court following the Kesavananda Bharati verdict and the sidelining of Justice H.R. Khanna after his dissent in ADM Jabalpur, cautioning that these episodes remain stark reminders of how fragile judicial independence can be in the face of executive or legislative hostility.
The signatories stressed that despite these historical onslaughts, the Indian judiciary has endured and retained public faith precisely because it resisted external pressure. They warned that the current attempt against Justice Swaminathan is not an isolated incident but part of a disturbing and growing pattern.
The statement pointed to several recent instances where the higher judiciary has been subjected to sustained public attacks and political vilification. These included the 2018 attempt to impeach former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, campaigns against former CJIs Ranjan Gogoi, S.A. Bobde and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, and what the judges described as targeted attacks on the incumbent Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, whenever judicial observations or outcomes displeased certain political constituencies.
According to the former judges, these episodes reflect an effort to “weaponise impeachment and public calumny” to coerce the judiciary. They underscored that criticism of judicial decisions must remain reasoned and within constitutional bounds, and cannot descend into threats of removal or intimidation.
“The present attempt to impeach a sitting High Court judge for discharging his judicial duty is part of a continuing assault on the dignity and independence of the judicial institution,” the statement said, warning that while one judge may be the immediate target, the ultimate casualty would be the institution itself.
Calling for collective resistance, the judges urged Members of Parliament across party lines, the legal fraternity, civil society and citizens to unequivocally denounce the move and ensure it is halted at the outset. They reiterated that judges are answerable only to their oath and the Constitution, and not to partisan political pressures.
The statement was accompanied by a supplementary letter endorsed by another group of 36 retired judges, including one former Supreme Court judge, four former High Court Chief Justices and 31 former High Court judges. This comes in addition to an earlier open letter released on December 12, 2025, signed by 56 retired judges expressing concern over recent developments affecting the judiciary.
Together, the former judges said, these interventions were intended to send a clear message: in a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, judicial decisions are to be tested through appeals and legal critique, not through threats of impeachment for political non-conformity.