Justice G R Swaminathan of Madras HC summoned Advocate S Vanchinathan over a bias complaint the lawyer filed against him. Despite being the subject, the judge presided over the contempt hearing himself.
Chennai: On July 27, In a significant development that has stirred legal circles across Tamil Nadu, Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench recently issued a warning for criminal contempt and strongly criticized Advocate S Vanchinathan. This took place during the hearing of a writ appeal on July 24, where the courtroom saw a dramatic turn of events.
The case, which had nothing to do with the lawyer personally, became controversial when Justice Swaminathan summoned Advocate Vanchinathan to appear in person.
This unusual step was taken not for the appeal at hand, but because the same lawyer had earlier filed a complaint against Justice Swaminathan before the Chief Justice of India (CJI), accusing him of caste bias and ideological favoritism.
The petition, which was a detailed 38-page representation, was submitted by Vanchinathan in June 2025 to the Chief Justice, requesting an investigation under the Supreme Court’s “in-house procedure” for handling complaints against judges.
This procedure was established in the landmark case C Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A M Bhattacharjee (1995), where the Supreme Court ruled that such complaints should first be looked into by the Chief Justice and not the judge in question.
The petition by Vanchinathan clearly stated that it did not seek any punishment against Justice Swaminathan, but only a fair inquiry.
As per those present in the courtroom, the atmosphere became tense when Justice Swaminathan, sitting with Justice K Rajasekar, directly questioned Vanchinathan about the allegations in his petition.
The judge asked whether the advocate still stood by the accusations he had made. In response, Vanchinathan asked for a written order before replying, leading to a sharp comment from Justice Swaminathan in open court.
During the hearing, Justice Swaminathan also referred to the advocate’s past record, mentioning that Vanchinathan had previously been suspended by the Bar Council.
The judge cited relevant Supreme Court judgments and stated that Vanchinathan’s actions could amount to criminal contempt of court. The court even directed the Registry to issue a written questionnaire for the advocate to respond to formally.
This incident did not go unnoticed. On Saturday, eight retired judges of the Madras High Court — including Justice K Chandru and Justice D Hariparanthaman — issued a rare and public appeal urging Justice Swaminathan and Justice Rajasekar to avoid initiating contempt proceedings against the lawyer.
Their joint statement said,
“In the absence of any action taken by the Chief Justice of India on the petition, it is premature for the learned judges to initiate action.”
They further referred to the Ravichandran Iyer decision, emphasizing that any claims of judicial misconduct must be looked into by the Chief Justice under a neutral and structured process — and not by the very judge who is being accused.
Their statement reminded that,
“If and when the Chief Justice of India is of the opinion that it requires an investigation into the truthfulness or otherwise, he can constitute an ‘in-house inquiry’ into those allegations made against the judge.”
They added,
“It is only when the in-house committee is of the opinion that there is a prima facie truth in the allegations made, he can take or order appropriate action in the matter. This is the established procedure as of now. The same procedure has also been followed in the recent case of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court.”
The statement was signed by retired judges K Chandru, D Hariparanthaman, C T Selvam, Akbar Ali, P Kalaiyarasan, S Vimala, K K Sasidharan, and S S Sundar.
This episode also comes at a time when the debate over the limits of contempt law is growing. Back in November 2023, then Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud had clarified the purpose of contempt powers under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution.
He said,
“Contempt powers exist to safeguard the functioning of courts, not to shield judges from criticism.”
He further added that
“fair criticism of judgments is permissible and vital in a constitutional democracy.”
Meanwhile, the formal order passed by the Madras High Court bench consisting of Justices Swaminathan and Rajasekar held that Vanchinathan’s actions
“prima facie constitute criminal contempt of court.”
The order recorded,
“We, therefore, persisted with our query as to whether he continued to maintain that one of us (Justice Swaminathan) is being casteist while discharging his judicial duties. S Vanchinathan refused to answer this question. Instead, he requested that the query be posed in writing.”
The court has now instructed Advocate Vanchinathan to appear again at 1:15 PM on July 28 and respond to the question:
“Whether you, S Vanchinathan, stand by your imputation of caste bias on the part of Justice G R Swaminathan in the discharge of his judicial duties?”
This case raises important questions about the scope of judicial accountability, the role of contempt powers, and the balance between judicial dignity and a citizen’s right to raise complaints.
It also puts the spotlight on whether judges can — or should — respond from the bench to complaints made through proper legal channels to the Chief Justice of India.
READ MORE REPORTS ON Caste Bias
