A senior advocate named in the impeachment notice against Madras High Court judge Justice G R Swaminathan has dismissed the accusations as a “charade” and denied any preferential treatment in court. The move has triggered strong backlash, with over 50 former judges calling it a threat to judicial independence.
A senior advocate whose name has been mentioned in the impeachment notice against Madras High Court judge Justice G R Swaminathan has strongly denied all allegations and called the entire exercise a “charade”.
The advocate has rejected claims that Justice Swaminathan gave him any special or preferential treatment while hearing cases in court.
The impeachment notice was submitted on December 9 to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla by a delegation of Members of Parliament from the I.N.D.I.A. bloc, led by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK).
The notice accuses Justice Swaminathan of judicial impropriety and alleges that he showed bias in certain cases.
One of the key allegations in the notice is that the judge favoured a particular senior advocate during case listing and hearings.
The notice states:
“Undue favoritism shown to one Mr. M. Sricharan Ranganathan, Senior Advocate in deciding the cases, also favoring advocates from a particular community”.
Responding to this, Senior Advocate M. Sricharan Ranganathan has completely denied the accusations and said they are false and misleading. He stated that his name was wrongly dragged into the impeachment notice and that the allegations were based on a misrepresentation of facts.
According to him, routine and normal courtroom interactions were projected as proof of wrongdoing, which he described as a complete distortion of reality.
Ranganathan further said that the impeachment move is not a genuine attempt to ensure accountability within the judiciary. Instead, he claimed it is aimed at targeting a judge who has refused to bend under political or ideological pressure.
He described the attempt as a
“frontal assault on an unyielding judge”.
The senior advocate also said that he was “snook cocked” by the sudden push to impeach Justice Swaminathan and felt that he had become a “soft target” in the middle of an ongoing political conflict.
Meanwhile, the move to initiate impeachment proceedings has drawn strong criticism from within the judicial community.
More than 50 former judges of the Supreme Court, along with former Chief Justices and judges of several High Courts, have openly condemned the impeachment attempt. They have described it as a serious threat to judicial independence.
In a joint statement, the former judges warned that the move amounts to intimidation of judges who do not align with political or ideological expectations.
The statement said:
“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,” and further cautioned that allowing such actions to continue would “cut at the very roots of our democracy and the independence of the judiciary”.
The impeachment notice came soon after a major controversy surrounding Justice Swaminathan’s order dated December 3 related to the lighting of the traditional Karthigai Deepam lamp at Thiruparankundram Hill in Tamil Nadu.
The hill houses the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple and also has a nearby dargah, and the area has long been sensitive due to disputes over religious rights and access.
In his order, Justice Swaminathan allowed devotees to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp on the “Deepathoon” pillar located at the top of the hill by December 4. He rejected objections raised by both the temple authorities and the dargah management.
The judge recorded that the ritual, according to him, would not interfere with the religious rights of the Muslim community.
However, the Tamil Nadu government did not carry out the High Court’s order. The state cited law and order concerns and later challenged the decision by filing an appeal and a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.
The controversy has since grown beyond the specific order, with many legal experts and former judges viewing the impeachment attempt as a dangerous precedent that could weaken judicial independence and undermine the constitutional balance between the judiciary and the political establishment.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Will
