Impeachment Motion Against Madras HC Judge Sparks Debate on Judicial Independence

Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madras High Court has come under political and legal scrutiny following an impeachment motion initiated by Opposition MPs after his orders permitting the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp atop the Thirupparankundram hills in Madurai. The episode has triggered a wider debate on judicial independence, constitutional limits on impeachment, and the propriety of invoking parliamentary powers in response to controversial judicial rulings.

The controversy originates from Justice Swaminathan’s December 2025 order allowing the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp on the ‘Deepathoon’ pillar situated atop the Thirupparankundram Subramaniaswamy hill. The site is religiously sensitive, as it also houses a 14th-century dargah. In his ruling, the judge emphasised the need for temple authorities to assert possession over temple property. When the temple administration did not initially comply with the order, the court subsequently directed that the lamp be lit on the upper pillar as well.

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and its allies objected to the order, arguing that it ran contrary to a 2017 Madras High Court bench ruling that discouraged judicial interference in temple rituals. They further contended that the decision had the potential to disturb communal harmony, especially with Tamil Nadu Assembly elections less than six months away. The situation on the ground became tense, with crowds attempting to climb the hill, forcing authorities to impose restrictions on public gatherings to maintain law and order.

The Tamil Nadu government challenged the order before a division bench of the Madras High Court, but its appeals were rejected. Following this setback, the state approached the Supreme Court. While the apex court has admitted the state’s plea, it has not yet fixed a date for hearing, leaving the substantive legal issues open for adjudication.

Against this backdrop, 107 MPs from the INDIA bloc, led by the DMK, submitted a notice earlier this week to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking the impeachment of Justice Swaminathan. Copies of the notice were also sent to President Droupadi Murmu and the Chief Justice of India. The delegation included senior Opposition leaders such as Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Akhilesh Yadav, T R Baalu, Kanimozhi, and Supriya Sule.

In addition to citing the Thirupparankundram order, the impeachment notice alleged that Justice Swaminathan showed favouritism towards senior advocate M Sricharan Ranganathan in a series of cases. The motion claimed that the judge’s conduct raised serious questions about impartiality, transparency, and the secular functioning of the judiciary. Ranganathan has firmly denied these allegations, stating that the motion selectively interprets court data and relies on identity-based insinuations to target both the judge and counsel.

The impeachment move drew sharp political reactions. Union Home Minister Amit Shah criticised the Opposition, accusing it of indulging in appeasement politics and describing the attempt to impeach a judge over a judicial ruling as unprecedented. In a significant show of support for judicial independence, 56 former judges issued an open letter opposing the impeachment notice, characterising it as a brazen attempt to browbeat judges who do not align with particular ideological or political expectations.

Under India’s constitutional framework, a High Court judge can be removed only on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The procedure is governed by the Constitution of India and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and is deliberately designed to be stringent in order to protect judicial independence from political pressure.

The Constitution provides that a judge shall not be removed except by an order of the President, passed after an address by each House of Parliament. Such an address must be supported by a majority of the total membership of the House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting. Both Houses must adopt the address during the same parliamentary session before it is presented to the President.

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 lays down the detailed procedure for initiating and examining an impeachment motion. A notice of motion must be signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha and submitted to the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be. The presiding officer has the discretion to admit or reject the motion after considering relevant materials.

If the motion is admitted, a three-member inquiry committee is constituted to investigate the charges. The committee comprises a judge of the Supreme Court, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. If notices are submitted in both Houses on the same day, a joint committee is formed; if they are submitted on different dates, the later notice is deemed rejected.

Based on the committee’s findings, the process diverges. If the judge is exonerated, the motion lapses and no further action is taken. If the judge is found guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, the motion, along with the committee’s report, is taken up for consideration in the House or Houses where it is pending. If both Houses pass the motion with the prescribed special majorities, an address seeking removal is presented to the President.

Legal experts have pointed out that the impeachment motion against Justice Swaminathan faces significant hurdles. Judicial rulings, even if controversial or unpopular, do not by themselves constitute misbehaviour under the Constitution or the Judges (Inquiry) Act. Errors of law or disputes over judicial reasoning are matters to be addressed through appeals and reviews within the judicial system, not through impeachment.

Moreover, impeachment proceedings require clear, specific, and verifiable evidence of abuse of office. Broad and vague assertions regarding impartiality, transparency, or secular functioning, without demonstrable proof of misconduct, typically fail to meet the high evidentiary threshold prescribed by law. The Speaker also retains the authority to reject the motion at the threshold if it does not disclose specific acts that, if proved, would amount to misbehaviour or incapacity.

Impeachment, constitutional experts emphasise, is not a back-door appellate mechanism to overturn judicial decisions. It is an extraordinary measure aimed at safeguarding the integrity of the judiciary by addressing proven wrongdoing or incapacity. The correctness or otherwise of Justice Swaminathan’s orders on the Karthigai Deepam issue will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, where the state’s appeal is currently pending, rather than through parliamentary censure.