The DMK is alleged to be contemplating the choice of transferring a discover in Parliament looking for the elimination of Madras Excessive Court docket choose Justice GR Swaminathan, whose order relating to lighting of lamps in disputed areas in Madurai has landed the party-led authorities in a authorized and political dispute.
Sources mentioned a number of opposition members of Parliament have signed the petition, reportedly calling Justice Swaminathan’s December 1 order a “violation of judicial self-discipline”, given {that a} division bench of the Madras Excessive Court docket had dominated in the identical case in 2017 that courts mustn’t intrude in temple rituals or dictate the precise location of lighting lamps.
DMK officers mentioned the single-judge bench mustn’t have handed an order that successfully overturned the division bench’s directive. However some opposition events usually are not satisfied that calling for the choose’s elimination is sufficient.
One opposition lawmaker mentioned, “The usual for impeaching a choose may be very excessive. There should be grounds reminiscent of confirmed judicial misconduct. Simply since you do not just like the ruling is not any foundation for calling for the impeachment of a choose.”
In a Dec. 1 order, Justice Swaminathan of the Madurai Excessive Court docket ordered the location’s hilltop Hindu temple to revive what he known as the “custom” of lighting the Thiruparankundram Deepam close to the historic dargah. A couple of days later, he additionally issued a robust contempt order after authorities didn’t implement the courtroom order as a consequence of resistance from the DMK authorities.
Justice Swaminathan mentioned the petitioner and 10 others needed to climb a hill with CISF escort (clearly excluding police) and light-weight a lamp, calling the act “symbolic however essential” to guard the courtroom’s authority.
The DMK is in a tricky spot, particularly contemplating that the meeting elections are developing within the state, with the BJP displaying help for the courtroom order.
The Madurai collector and the manager officer of the Subramaniya Swamy temple in Thiruparankundram have appealed in opposition to Justice Swaminathan’s order and a division bench of the excessive courtroom will hear their petition on December 12.
In line with the Decide Investigation Act of 1968, expenses in opposition to judges might be introduced up if a decision is launched in Parliament and signed by no less than 100 members, and if a decision is launched in Parliament and signed by no less than 50 members. As soon as a movement is filed, the Speaker of the Home decides whether or not to just accept or reject it.
The DMK has 22 MPs and wishes help from different events to safe 100 signatures.
For Justice Swaminathan, being within the highlight over such scandals just isn’t new. The choose has been criticized by critics for bringing the courtroom to the forefront of Tamil Nadu’s tradition wars. Because the Bharatiya Janata Get together makes inroads within the state, the tradition warfare intensifies.
In his speeches and writings, judges have usually expressed respect for the concept of ”continuity” with Hindu philosophy, classical Tamil custom, and non secular id. His rulings in circumstances involving temple administration, non secular rights, or conventional customs usually embody references to historic texts.
In his contempt order within the case, Justice Swaminathan warned the authorities of “extreme penalties” if they didn’t implement the order to facilitate the lighting of Deepam.
non secular sympathy
Since then, an anecdote advised by Justice Swaminathan in a speech has been making headlines. In it, he talks about utilizing non secular sympathies to save lots of individuals who have died in site visitors accidents from authorized hassle. Justice Swaminathan, who was a lawyer on the time, mentioned in his speech that the police’s lack of dependable witnesses helped “save the sastrigar”, including: “That day I spotted that if we shield the Vedas, the Vedas will shield us.”
In different circumstances, Justice Swaminathan held that the state “doesn’t have the facility to undermine Hindu ritual practices” underneath the duvet of neutrality, public coverage, or administrative comfort.
A few of these orders have been later overturned or “relaxed” by divisional courts on enchantment.
For instance, Justice Swaminathan’s Could 2024 order allowed a petition to permit “angapradakshinam” (a ritual during which devotees roll on eaten banana leaves), which had been banned by a divisional courtroom in 2015. In March 2025, the Divisional Court docket put aside the 2024 order and reinstated the ritual ban.
Legal professionals mentioned the tone of Justice Swaminathan’s contempt order within the Deepam case on December 4 additionally mirrored his type. At one level, he reminded police that President Dwight D. Eisenhower despatched within the navy when federal marshals refused to implement courtroom orders on desegregation. “Thiru Loganathan, IPS (Madurai Metropolis Police Commissioner) should take inspiration from such examples,” he mentioned.
A senior choose of the Madras Excessive Court docket expressed his displeasure with the language, telling The Indian Specific, “The Structure expects quiet braveness from judges, not ardour or cultural tutelage. That braveness is to carry energy with out historic outrage.”
One other senior Excessive Court docket choose, who can also be a buddy of Justice Swaminathan, mentioned, “Religion is human…Perhaps I’m extra non secular than Swaminathan…However what’s worrying is that the judiciary is turning into a driver of id moderately than a dealer of rights…The lamp burns as a result of there’s a flame, not as a result of the mountain needs to be reclaimed.”
A senior Excessive Court docket lawyer who as soon as labored with Justice Swaminathan mentioned his Deepam order mirrored “how legislation, religion, sovereignty and id intersect in India as we speak”. “However a constitutional democracy ought to work by way of communal dwelling, negotiation, and restraint.”
A colleague within the excessive courtroom additionally described Justice Swaminathan as a “symptom of age” because the courtroom is drawn into an id battle. “However the Indian Structure is a pluralistic dwelling organism. It lives and breathes by way of variety,” the choose mentioned.
He additionally identified what occurred following Justice Swaminathan’s contempt order. “Hindu teams gathered on the scene and pelted stones that night time, ignoring the restraints of police personnel.”
