Nearly four months before the recent controversy over the Karthigai Deepam lamp at Thirupparankundram, several MPs from the INDIA bloc had already raised alarms about the conduct of Madras High Court judge Justice G.R. Swaminathan.
On August 11, the MPs addressed separate but identical letters to President Droupadi Murmu and then Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, alleging that the judge displayed caste and ideological bias in the functioning of his court. The letters would later form the backdrop to the Opposition’s move to introduce a motion in Parliament seeking his removal from the Madurai Bench.
The MPs accused Justice Swaminathan of extending preferential treatment to a small circle of advocates—particularly those from the Brahmin community and others perceived to be aligned with Hindu right-wing organisations. They claimed this pattern skewed case listings and hearing priorities, creating what they described as an atmosphere of exclusivity and caste-based preference.
Their concerns resurfaced after Justice Swaminathan directed authorities at the Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Thirupparankundram to ensure the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp on a pillar situated near a hilltop dargah—an order that drew heated debate and renewed scrutiny of his judicial approach.
The MPs argued that a number of his rulings pointed to a “clear ideological tilt” towards right-wing political thought. They maintained that while judges may privately hold any belief, those convictions must not shape judicial reasoning, particularly in cases involving minority rights and constitutional protections.
Among the examples cited in the letters was his order allowing Annathanam and Angapradakshinam at a temple in Karur. A Division Bench had earlier prohibited these rituals on grounds of dignity and humane treatment, but Justice Swaminathan permitted them in response to a fresh petition. According to the MPs, such departures from precedent raise troubling doubts over judicial neutrality.
The correspondence urged the constitutional authorities to examine whether the judge’s actions amounted to “proved misbehaviour and gross misconduct,” arguing that the credibility of the judiciary relies on both impartial conduct and the appearance of impartiality.
