Topic: Judicial Independence & Contemporary Political Narratives
Date: 12th December 2025
Author: Krishna Prasad U
Sr. Research Associate, Samvit Kendra
Abstract
The recent move by Members of Parliament from the INDIA bloc to initiate impeachment proceedings against Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court represents a dangerous precedent in Indian constitutional history. While the motion is ostensibly framed as a defence of secularism, a closer examination of the facts reveals a disturbing motive: communal sectarian intolerance. This paper argues that the campaign against Justice Swaminathan is not based on legal misconduct but is a reaction to his refusal to prioritise minority appeasement over the rule of law. By analysing the specific property dispute at Thirupparankundram and contrasting the current outcry with historical precedents, this article seeks to expose the sectarian double standards at play and the threat this poses to the independence of the judiciary.
Keywords
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Judicial Independence, Thirupparankundram, Impeachment Motion, Periyarist Ecosystem, Rule of Law, Temple Property Rights, Deepathoon, Secularism.
1. Introduction
On December 9, 2025, a group of Members of Parliament (MPs) belonging to the INDIA bloc, including representatives from the DMK, CPI(M), and VCK, submitted a notice to the Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla, seeking the impeachment of Justice G.R. Swaminathan. This is a rare and extreme step in Indian democracy, typically reserved for judges who have committed proven misbehaviour or suffer from incapacity.
The immediate trigger for this motion was an order passed by Justice Swaminathan regarding the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam (a traditional lamp) on the Thirupparankundram hill in Madurai. The political groups spearheading the impeachment claim that the judge acted with bias. However, the facts suggest that this move is less about judicial accountability and more about sectarian vote-bank politics. This was not a case of judicial overreach, but a judge upholding the rule of law against the pressure of an organised religious lobby.
2. The Thirupparankundram Dispute – Law vs. Narrative
The central accusation against Justice Swaminathan is that his order favored one community over another. To understand the fallacy of this claim, one must look at the property rights established a century ago.
The 1923 Precedent
The media narrative has largely ignored the existence of a definitive legal decree from 1923. In a civil suit settled during the British era, and later confirmed, the boundaries of the hill were clearly demarcated. The decree established that while the Sikandar Badusha Dargah has rights over the specific land on which the structure stands, the surrounding unoccupied portions of the hill belong to the Subramaniya Swamy Temple.
Justice Swaminathan did not invent a new right for the Hindu devotees. He merely enforced a property right that has existed for over 100 years. In any standard property dispute, if a plot of land belongs to a Temple, the Temple has the right to conduct its rituals there. By framing this legal enforcement as “communal bias,” the critics are essentially arguing that “secularism” requires the suspension of Hindu property rights if they are near a minority institution. This is not the rule of law; it is sectarian bullying.
3. The Pattern of Political Intimidation
The impeachment motion cannot be viewed in isolation. It is the culmination of a long-standing campaign by the ruling dispensation in Tamil Nadu and its allies to silence a judge who refuses to toe their line.
Targeting the “Problematic” Judge
Justice Swaminathan has frequently drawn the ire of the Periyarist ecosystem because his judgments often challenge their control over the narrative.
- The Maridhas Case:When the state machinery arrested YouTuber Maridhas for a social media post, Justice Swaminathan quashed the FIR, asking the crucial question: “Is there no space for a different view?” (Express News Service, 2021). This protected the freedom of speech for a nationalist voice, which angered those who are used to monopolising public discourse.
- Temple Administration:He has consistently ruled that the state government’s role in temples (through the HR&CE Department) is administrative, not ritualistic. He has checked the government’s attempts to alter age-old traditions, thereby protecting the sanctity of Hindu religious practices.
Because these judgments protect civil liberties and Hindu traditions from state overreach, the judge has been labelled “controversial.” The impeachment motion is a clear message: If you rule against our specific sectarian interests, we will come for your job.
4. The Hypocrisy of the “Secular” Lobby
The intellectual dishonesty of the impeachment movers is evident when we compare this reaction to their stance on other judicial matters.
Selective Independence
When judges pass oral observations that disparage Hindu figures or sentiments (such as the observations made against Nupur Sharma by the Supreme Court bench in 2022), the same Left-Liberal ecosystem defends those judges fiercely (Express News Service, 2022). They argue that judges must be free to speak their minds without fear of backlash.
However, when Justice Swaminathan speaks about Dharma or “Bharat Mata,” or when he cites the Tirukkural to explain moral duties, he is immediately branded as “biased.” This reveals a clear sectarian double standard.
- Scenario A:A judge quotes Western philosophers or liberal theorists.
Verdict: Intellectual and Progressive. - Scenario B:Justice Swaminathan quotes Bhāratīya scriptures or upholds native traditions.
Verdict: Communal and Unconstitutional.
This proves that the impeachment motion is not about judicial conduct; it is about enforcing sectarian conformity within the judiciary.
5. Conclusion
The attempt to impeach Justice G.R. Swaminathan is a direct assault on the independence of the judiciary. It seeks to establish a norm where judges must look over their shoulders and seek approval from political and sectarian power brokers before delivering justice.
For an institution like the judiciary to function, it must be insulated from the “heckler’s veto.” Justice Swaminathan adhered to the 1923 legal decree regarding the Thirupparankundram hill. He upheld the property rights of a temple against encroachment. To punish him for this is to punish a judge for doing his duty. As a society, we must recognise this impeachment motion for what it is: a witch-hunt driven by communal sectarian intolerance against an “Intellectual Kshatriya” who dares to uphold the truth.
References
- The Hindu Bureau. (2025, December 10). Thiruparankundram row: INDIA bloc MPs submit letter to LS Speaker to move impeachment motion against Justice Swaminathan. The Hindu.https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/thiruparankundram-row-india-bloc-mps-submit-letter-to-ls-speaker-to-move-impeachment-motion-against-justice-swaminathan/article70375414.ece
- Express News Service. (2025, December 2). Madras HC allows lighting of lamp on Deepathoon near Thiruparankundram dargah. The New Indian Express.https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2025/Dec/02/madras-hc-allows-lighting-of-lamp-on-deepathoon-near-thiruparankundram-dargah
- Express News Service. (2021, December 24). Madras HC quashes one more FIR lodged against YouTuber Maridhas. The New Indian Express.https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2021/Dec/24/madras-hc-quashes-one-more-fir-lodged-against-youtuber-maridhas-2399140.html
- Times News Network. (2025, December). Don’t implement court order on deepam: DMK allies. The Times of India.https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/madurai/dont-implement-court-order-on-deepam-dmk-allies/articleshow/125726827.cms
- Express News Service. (2022, July 1). If law does not act against Nupur Sharma, wrong message would be sent out: Left parties. The New Indian Express.https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2022/Jul/01/if-law-does-not-act-against-nupur-sharma-wrong-message-would-be-sent-out-left-parties-2471875.html