P. S. Raman declined consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against retired D. Hariparanthaman over remarks on sitting judge G. R. Swaminathan. Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, Advocate General approval is mandatory for private criminal contempt petitions before High Courts.
TAMIL NADU: Tamil Nadu Advocate General P.S. Raman has declined to grant permission for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against retired Madras High Court Justice D. Hariparanthaman regarding comments made about sitting judge Justice G.R. Swaminathan during YouTube interviews.
According to Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the consent of the Advocate General of the relevant State is necessary before the High Court can hear a criminal contempt petition filed by a private party.
The request for contempt proceedings was made by Rangarajan Narasimhan based on interviews given by the retired judge on December 4 and 6, 2025, on the YouTube channels Nakeeran and Puthiya Thalaimurai – PT Nerpadapesu.
Narasimhan alleged that the interviews contained “reckless, baseless, derogatory, scandalous and contemptuous” remarks aimed at Justice Swaminathan and the operations of the Madras High Court.
The petition claimed that the retired judge attributed political and communal bias to Justice Swaminathan’s judicial decrees, accused him of procedural manipulation and misuse of contempt authority, and alleged that certain cases were resolved to align with a political or ideological agenda.
ALSO READ: Retired HC Judge Calls for Social Justice and Inclusivity in Judicial Appointments
Furthermore, the petition stated that the comments exceeded mere criticism of judicial reasoning, directly challenging the integrity and impartiality of a sitting judge.
The petitioner cited several statements from the interviews, including descriptions of judicial actions as “anarchy,” claims of a “corrupt mind,” and assertions that courts are swayed by caste and ideological factors.
The plea highlighted that such statements from a former judge, repeated across various platforms, could seriously undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
After reviewing the transcripts and video links, the Advocate General noted that he did not personally agree with or endorse the views expressed in the interviews.
However, he refused to grant consent for the commencement of criminal contempt proceedings.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Orders Seizure of Book Allegedly Defaming Justice G R Swaminathan
The Advocate General remarked that when individuals who have held significant constitutional roles are accused of contempt for public statements about the judiciary or specific judges, it is essential to approach the matter with heightened caution.
He referred to a comparable incident involving former Supreme Court judge Justice Markandey Katju, where contempt complaints were eventually dismissed.
The order further highlights that while former holders of constitutional offices should practice restraint in discussing the judiciary, such remarks should be considered in light of freedom of speech and the right to criticism.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES