Madras High Court criticised media channels for running slanderous campaigns against the judiciary for profit. Emphasising judicial respect, it said, “In the name of freedom of speech and expression, one cannot condone acts of contempt.”
The Madras High Court, while addressing a contempt petition against Advocate Vanchinathan for alleging that Justice GR Swaminathan exhibited caste and communal bias, emphasized the necessity to regulate discussions on social media.
The Court noted that launching communal campaigns against judges on these platforms could ultimately jeopardize the integrity of the judicial system.
A Bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and K Rajasekar stated,
“In the name of freedom of speech and expression, one cannot condone acts of contempt. The channels which rake in monies by such slanderous campaigns will have to be taken head on. Lawyers who make such statements are guilty of professional misconduct. There is something called laxman rekha which if crossed must invite peril.”
The Court also acknowledged an appeal from former judges urging restraint in taking contempt actions against Vanchinathan, remarking,
“Thiru S. Vanchinathan has mobilized a group of lawyers and retired Judges to rush to his rescue. They have also passed reckless comments without waiting for today’s outcome. Gratuitous appeals and advice have poured forth. We ignore them with the contempt which they deserve.”
Furthermore, it described the reaction from former judges as “most unfortunate.”
The Court referenced a statement made by Justice K. Chandru, a former judge, who questioned the procedures followed by the Bench. It noted, “It is interesting to note that one of those judges made it clear that he had not authorised the issuance of the statement. It is for Justice K. Chandru to explain this.”
Vanchinathan was summoned by the Court regarding numerous social media posts and video interviews in which he purportedly accused Justice Swaminathan of making judicial decisions influenced by communal and caste biases. The Court sought to ascertain whether the lawyer stood by his remarks or intended to retract them.
In its order dated July 28, the Court emphasized that judges take an oath to fulfill their judicial responsibilities without favor or fear,
“When a Judge sits on the dias, he discharges his judicial duties as per his conscience and by strictly adhering to the judicial oath. He cannot be seen as carrying on his caste or religious labels while on the bench. If someone continues to have such a perception, he obviously has jaundiced eyes. The legal system provides for remedies and recourse has to be taken to them by persons aggrieved by individual decisions.”
The Court further pointed out that Advocate Vanchinathan had previously faced suspension from the Bar Council of India due to conduct deemed inappropriate for an advocate.
When he declined to answer the judges’ inquiry about whether he maintained his statements, the Court remarked,
“Thiru S. Vanchinathan probably knows that if he repeats his slander before this Court either in person or in writing, consequences will follow. This speaks for the courage of the man. A person who proclaims himself as an activist must stand by his statement and be ready to take the consequences. He should not evade. When his own interview was played and his attention was pointedly drawn to certain parts of it, he kept on mumbling that it must be given to him in writing.”
Ultimately, the Court decided to refer the case to the Chief Justice for further action.
“Thiru S. Vanchinathan in his reply dated 28.07.2025 has submitted that it is the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Madras High Court who can take a call in the matter. We also have no doubt on this score….We, therefore, direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Madras High Court and it is for the Hon’ble Chief Justice to take such action as His Lordship deems fit and appropriate.”
Additionally, the Court clarified that a misleading report from Sun News (a Tamil news channel) falsely indicated that the case was transferred to the Chief Justice in response to comments made by senior lawyers and retired judges.
The Court stated,
“We have already clarified our stand with regard to the public statements. We are aware of the procedural rules and our order will be in consonance with the same. Our course of action cannot be governed by public statements,”
Read Attachment