Madras High Court said the contempt action against S Vanchinathan was based on his social media interview, not his petition to the CJI. The bench stressed it aimed to uphold judicial integrity, not silence criticism.
MADURAI: On July 29, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday made it clear that the legal proceedings started against advocate S Vanchinathan were not based on the letter he had sent to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), but were instead related to the interviews he had given on social media platforms.
In those interviews, Vanchinathan had accused Justice G R Swaminathan of showing caste bias while performing his judicial work.
A division bench consisting of Justices G R Swaminathan and K Rajasekar had taken up the matter last week and has now asked the court Registry to present the case before the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.
On July 24, the same bench had called advocate Vanchinathan to court and asked him directly whether he still stood by his allegations against Justice Swaminathan.
The bench also commented that his actions appeared, at first glance, to amount to contempt of court.
Following this, when Vanchinathan requested a formal written question from the bench, the court issued the question in writing along with a pre-cognisance notice.
The notice instructed him to appear in court in person and respond to the question on the following Monday.
When Vanchinathan appeared before the court as directed, he told the judges that he would not be able to give a reply unless the written question clearly stated which specific statements of his were being referred to.
In response, the judges said,
“Our intention was to close the matter if he had indicated a change of heart.”
Even after the court played a video of one of his interviews in open court to point out the statements in question, Vanchinathan still did not confirm whether he stood by his remarks.
He again said he needed a written question that specifically mentioned the exact statements. The judges commented on his attitude, saying,
“This speaks for the courage of the man.”
The bench also shared its views about the importance of judicial independence and the damage caused by baseless campaigns on social media.
It stated,
“The legal system provides for remedies and recourse has to be taken to them by persons aggrieved by individual decisions. Without doing so, launching communal campaigns on social media would eventually weaken the system itself.”
The judges criticised social media channels that were involved in spreading such content and strongly opposed the misuse of freedom of speech to attack the judiciary.
They stated,
“One cannot condone such acts of contempt in the name of freedom of speech and expression.”
They further added that
“Lawyers who make such statements are guilty of professional misconduct.”
The bench also expressed disappointment that even some former judges had spoken out publicly in support of Vanchinathan before the court could finish dealing with the case.
The judges remarked,
“It is also unfortunate that many retired judges made ‘reckless comments’ in support of Vanchinathan without waiting for the outcome of the proceedings.”
Meanwhile, several lawyers across different cities, including Madurai, Chennai, and Nagapattinam, came out in support of advocate Vanchinathan.
They held protests and expressed their disapproval of the judges’ remarks. The protesting lawyers demanded that the court drop all action initiated against Vanchinathan, arguing that his right to speak should not be treated as contempt.
READ MORE REPORTS ON CASTE BIAS
