‘Allegations Are a Charade’, Says Senior Advocate Named in Justice G R Swaminathan Impeachment Notice

A senior advocate whose name appears in the impeachment notice moved against Madras High Court judge Justice G R Swaminathan has described the accusations as a charade, rejecting claims that the judge extended him preferential treatment in court.

The impeachment notice, given by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led delegation of I.N.D.I.A. bloc Members of Parliament to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on December 9, accuses Justice Swaminathan of judicial impropriety, citing alleged instances where the judge was said to have shown bias.

Among the accusations mentioned in the notice is a claim that the judge favoured a particular senior advocate in the listing and handling of cases.

The notice read: "Undue favoritism shown to one Mr. M. Sricharan Ranganathan, Senior Advocate in deciding the cases, also favoring advocates from a particular community".

In response, Senior Advocate Ranganathan has denied the assertions outright, calling them false and misleading. He stated that his inclusion in the impeachment document was a misrepresentation of facts.

According to him, the claims were constructed in a manner that projected normal courtroom interactions as evidence of wrongdoing, which he termed a complete distortion.

The impeachment motion also refers to past judicial observations and proceedings involving Justice Swaminathan, which the opposition MPs cite as grounds for initiating removal proceedings.

The advocate rejected the allegations, emphasising that the move was not a genuine effort toward accountability but an attempt to target a judge who, in his view, has resisted political or ideological influence. He described the move as a "frontal assault on an unyielding judge".

Ranganathan remarked that he was “snook cocked" by the push to impeach Justice Swaminathan and said he had become a “soft target" caught amid political tensions.

Notably, more than 50 former judges of the Supreme Court and former Chief Justices and judges of various High Courts have also strongly condemned the move to initiate impeachment proceedings against Justice Swaminathan, calling it a direct threat to judicial independence.

The former judges said the attempt amounts to intimidation of judges who do not conform to political or ideological expectations. “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,” the statement said, warning that allowing such a move to proceed would “cut at the very roots of our democracy and the independence of the judiciary".

The impeachment notice came just after a sharp stand-off over Justice Swaminathan’s December 3 directions on lighting the traditional Karthigai Deepam lamp at Thiruparankundram Hill in Tamil Nadu. The site includes the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple and a nearby dargah, and has been at the centre of a simmering dispute over religious rights and access.

In his order, Justice Swaminathan had permitted devotees to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp on the “Deepathoon” pillar atop the hill by December 4. The judgment rejected objections raised by both the temple authorities and the dargah management, and recorded that the ritual, in his view, would not interfere with the religious rights of the Muslim community.

The Tamil Nadu government, however, did not implement the order, citing concerns over law and order, and moved an appeal and the Apex Court through an SLP against the High Court order.