Eight retired Madras High Court judges urged restraint on contempt action against Advocate Vanchinathan. They said only the CJI can act on misconduct claims under SC’s 1995 precedent.
Chennai: Today, on July 28, In a major development from the Madras High Court, eight retired judges have come forward in support of Advocate Vanchinathan, who is currently facing possible contempt of court proceedings for alleging caste and communal bias against sitting Judge GR Swaminathan.
The retired judges, in a joint appeal, urged the two sitting judges, Justices GR Swaminathan and K Rajasekar, to hold back any contempt proceedings for the time being.
This controversy began when Advocate Vanchinathan was summoned by the High Court over his social media posts and video interviews. In these posts, he had allegedly made serious accusations against Justice GR Swaminathan, claiming the judge acted with caste and communal prejudice in his judicial decisions.
The Court, after taking note of these allegations, asked the lawyer whether he stood by his comments or wished to withdraw them.
Instead of responding directly to the Court, Vanchinathan took a different route and wrote a letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and other sitting judges of the Supreme Court. In the letter, he repeated his allegations against Justice Swaminathan.
Reacting to the legal situation, eight retired judges of the Madras High Court, led by former Justice K Chandru, issued a strong statement on July 26.
The statement appealed to the sitting judges to wait before taking any contempt action against the advocate. It referred to a significant 1995 Supreme Court case—C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee—which clearly laid down how complaints against sitting judges should be handled.
The rule says such complaints must be sent directly to the Chief Justice of India, who has the sole authority to decide if an internal “in-house inquiry” needs to be conducted.
The retired judges said,
“We are of the opinion that in the absence of any such action taken by the Chief Justice of India on the petition sent by the Advocate, it will be premature for the learned judges to initiate action against the lawyer concerned.”
They further added that in another recent case involving Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, the same procedural safeguards were followed.
The retired judges emphasized that no action should be taken unless the in-house inquiry committee finds enough merit in the complaint.
The appeal stated,
“We appeal to the learned judges to give up any action at this stage and also to await any decision to be taken by the Chief Justice of India in the petition sent by Advocate Vanchinathan.”
The statement was made public by Justice K Chandru with written approval from seven other retired judges: Justices D Hariparanthaman, CT Selvam, MM Akbar Ali, P Kalaiyarasan, S Vimala, KK Sasidharan, and SS Sundar.
In a clear and humble tone, they concluded,
“This appeal is made only in the interest of the judicial institution. We have no other interest in the matter.”
However, this move did not sit well with Justice GR Swaminathan, who was visibly upset during the court hearing. Referring to the statement issued by the retired judges, he said in open court,
“While this matter is pending, it is most unfortunate that some retired judges are rendering opinions.”
He also made a heartfelt observation, saying he was particularly saddened to see one of his former colleagues supporting the appeal.
“I am hurt by Justice SS Sundar signing the letter,” he noted.
Eventually, the bench led by Justice GR Swaminathan directed that the case be handed over to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court for appropriate further steps.
This entire episode has sparked a larger debate on how allegations against sitting judges should be addressed, and whether contempt proceedings should be used when there is already a mechanism in place via the Supreme Court’s established procedures.
The retired judges’ intervention, made “only in the interest of the judicial institution,” adds a new dimension to the ongoing matter, urging caution, institutional integrity, and adherence to established legal norms.
READ MORE REPORTS ON Caste Bias
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
