Chennai- The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice K. Rajasekar, has taken serious note of allegations of caste bias leveled against Justice Swaminathan by activist-lawyer S. Vanchinathan. The court, while hearing W.A.(MD) No. 510 of 2023, directed the Registry to place the matter before the  Chief Justice of the Madras High Court for appropriate action, emphasizing the need to uphold judicial independence and dignity.

The writ appeal, filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, sought to set aside an order passed in W.P(MD)No.12532 of 2017 dated June 17, 2022. The appellant, Dr. D. Vetrichelvan, challenged the earlier decision, with the respondents including Tamil University, its Vice Chancellor, Dr. G. Palanivelu, the Secretary to the Government’s Department of Tamil Developments and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, and the University Grants Commission. Represented by Senior Counsel Mr. B. Saravanan, the appellant’s case was listed before the division bench on July 23, 2025. However, the court’s attention shifted from the substantive appeal to an unexpected issue involving advocate Thiru S. Vanchinathan, whose name appeared in the cause list as one of the counsel, despite his absence during the hearing.

Caste bias allegations against Justice

The court noted that Thiru S. Vanchinathan, described as an activist, had been vocal on various YouTube channels, alleging that Justice G.R. Swaminathan exhibited caste bias in his judicial duties. The bench expressed concern that such allegations disrupted their judicial thought process, stating, “Since the name of Thiru S. Vanchinathan was in the cause list as counsel, it did disturb our judicial thought process. We really wanted to know if Thiru S. Vanchinathan continued to suspect the judicial integrity of one of us (G.R.S,J.).” To address this, the court directed Vanchinathan to appear in person on July 24, to clarify his stance on the allegations.

On the specified date, Vanchinathan appeared before the bench but declined to directly respond to the court’s query about whether he stood by his imputation of caste bias. Instead, he insisted on receiving a written questionnaire, prompting the court to issue a pre-cognizance notice on July 25. The court clarified that this notice was issued solely due to Vanchinathan’s “persistent campaign” on social media, where he attributed improper motives to Justice Swaminathan’s judicial functioning. The bench emphasized that the proceedings were unrelated to any complaint Vanchinathan claimed to have sent to the Chief Justice of India, stating, “We make it clear that the present proceedings have nothing to do with the said complaint.”

The court’s order highlighted a specific interview on the Arakalagam Channel, telecast on May 23, 2025. In this interview, Vanchinathan alleged that during a court proceeding involving a bench with Justices Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan, Advocate General Thiru P.S. Raman was spared because he is a Brahmin, while Senior Counsel Thiru Wilson was targeted for not being a Brahmin. The court noted, “In the very same interview, allegation of religious bias was also made. This interview is only a sample. There are scores of such YouTube videos.” The bench played the video in open court, drawing Vanchinathan’s attention to these remarks, but he remained evasive, repeatedly stating that the court’s query should be provided in writing.

The court expressed dismay at the broader context surrounding the case, particularly a hall meeting organized on July 26, 2025, followed by a press conference addressed by retired Justice D. Hariparanthaman. Additionally, retired Justice K. Chandru issued a statement on behalf of himself and other former judges, questioning the bench’s process. The court remarked, “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. Be that as it may, we have to record our dismay as to how such interference with judicial process can be made.” The bench characterized these actions as “most unfortunate,” noting that several assumptions made by Vanchinathan and his supporters lacked factual basis.

Addressing Vanchinathan’s conduct, the court underscored that his written reply to the pre-cognizance notice was silent on the core issue of his allegations. The bench observed, “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.” The court further noted Vanchinathan’s history of professional misconduct, citing his suspension by the Bar Council of India for behavior unbecoming of an advocate. Despite the revocation of his suspension, the court found that Vanchinathan continued to “slander judiciary” through social media.

Discharging judicial duty without favour and fear

The bench emphasized the sanctity of judicial independence, a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution. Quoting their order, “Judicial independence is a basic feature of the Constitution. We Judges have taken oath to discharge our judicial duties not only without favour but also without fear.”

The court clarified that a judge’s role is to adjudicate cases impartially, without carrying personal or communal labels. "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 bench stated, “ The legal system provides for remedies and recourse has to be taken to them by persons aggrieved by individual decisions. Without doing so, launching communal campaigns on the social media would eventually weaken the system itself.”

Need for Regulating Social Media

Drawing on legal precedents, the court referenced the Kerala High Court’s recent decision in Cont Case Crl No.3 of 2024, which convicted an individual for attributing ideological bias to judges. The bench quoted, “In Het Ram Beniwal v. Raghuveer Singh, the Apex Court stated in unequivocal terms that though every citizen has a fundamental right to speech, guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the contempt of court is one of the restrictions on such right.”

Further, citing Halsbury’s Laws of England, the court noted, “Scurrilous abuse or personal attacks on a judge or court amount to punishable contempt. The objective is not to shield individual judges from criticism but to protect public confidence in the administration of justice.” The Supreme Court’s observations in Vijay Kurle, In re, (2021) 13 SCC 616, were also cited, emphasizing that attributing motives to judges undermines the justice delivery system.

The court expressed concern about the unregulated nature of social media discourse, stating, “Time has come to regulate the level of discourse in the social media. In the name of freedom of speech and expression, one cannot condone acts of contempt.” The bench criticized channels that profit from slanderous campaigns and warned that lawyers making such statements could face consequences for professional misconduct. The court also dismissed public statements by Vanchinathan’s supporters, including senior lawyers and retired judges, as “reckless comments” made without awaiting the court’s final order.

Addressing a misleading news report by Sun News, which suggested that the bench transferred the case to the Chief Justice in response to public statements, the court clarified, “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.” The bench directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court for further action.