Today, On 28th January, The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL seeking action against protestors who allegedly defamed Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court. The remarks followed his order to light the Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram Temple.
The Supreme Court issued a notice regarding a public interest litigation that calls for urgent measures to safeguard judicial independence and prevent the “intimidation and communalisation of judicial orders.”
This comes in light of recent rulings by Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court, which allowed the traditional Deepam ceremony at the Thiruparankundram temple in Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
A Bench consisting of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale has requested responses from the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Director General of Police (DGP), and the Commissioner of Police in Chennai.
Scheduling the matter for further hearing on February 2, the Justice Kumar-led Bench stated,
“Issue notice. Learned standing counsel for State of Tamil Nadu accepts notice and is permitted to file status report in regards to steps taken pursuant to representation made by the petitioner-in-person, if any,”
The PIL, presented by advocate G.S. Mani under Article 32 of the Constitution, asserts that the aim is not to protect any individual judge but to “protect the institution of judiciary, ensure rule of law, prevent communal polarisation, and secure uniform enforcement of constitutional norms across the country.”
The petitioner highlighted the controversy following Justice Swaminathan’s decisions about the Thiruparankundram Deepam issue, indicating that significant public backlash, including political remarks, protests, lawyer demonstrations, and social media campaigns, has “crossed the constitutionally permissible limits of criticism and entered the realm of scandalising the judiciary, communalisation of judicial acts, and interference with the administration of justice.”
The petition argues that judges should not face pressure from street protests or online harassment for their judicial decisions, emphasizing that “the only constitutionally recognised remedy against a judicial decision is through appeal, review or other lawful procedures.”
The PIL warns that allowing such campaigns against sitting judges could create a “chilling effect on judicial independence and discourage judges from discharging their duties fearlessly.”
It asserts that framing a judicial ruling as religiously motivated undermines public faith in constitutional courts and emboldens mob-driven justice, posing a significant threat to public order and communal harmony in Tamil Nadu.
Despite the existence of legal measures under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Information Technology Act, and the Contempt of Courts Act, the petition contends that no effective actions have been taken to mitigate unlawful assemblies near the Madras High Court or address online hate speech targeting Justice Swaminathan.
The petitioner notes that detailed representations were made to various officials, including the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary and senior police personnel, but “till date no reply, no response and no action has been forthcoming.
In seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention, the PIL calls for directives to prevent unlawful protests against courts and judges, ensure judicial independence from political and communal pressures, take steps against hate speech and the communalisation of judicial orders, and direct law enforcement to uphold public order and constitutional integrity.
Case Title: G.S. MANI v. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & Ors, WP(C) 536/2025