Published on: 10 December, 2025 16:56 IST
A group of 107 Opposition MPs submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking the removal of Madras High Court judge Justice G. R. Swaminathan, raising concerns about what they describe as issues of “impartiality, transparency, and the secular functioning of the judiciary.”
The notice comes in the backdrop of Justice Swaminathan’s December 1 order directing the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp atop a stone pillar at Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai. The site is at the centre of a long-standing dispute between Hindu temple authorities and a nearby dargah. His order has sparked an intense political debate in Tamil Nadu, with the ruling DMK alleging that there are deliberate attempts to create a communal flashpoint ahead of the upcoming Assembly elections.
In their petition, the MPs have cited three broad grounds for seeking the judge’s removal. They allege that his conduct raises questions about judicial neutrality and transparency, accuse him of showing undue favour to Senior Advocate M. Sricharan Ranganathan and certain advocates belonging to a particular community, and claim that his decisions reflect a political ideology incompatible with the secular values enshrined in the Constitution.
The initiative, led by the DMK, has been signed by several senior Opposition leaders, including Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Gaurav Gogoi of the Congress; Samajwadi Party leaders Akhilesh Yadav, Dimple Yadav, and Dharmendra Yadav; NCP (SP) MP Supriya Sule; AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi; and DMK leaders T. R. Baalu, A. Raja, and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi.
The Trinamool Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party are notable absentees from the list. AAP has clarified that its cooperation with other Opposition parties was limited to the electoral alliance during the Lok Sabha polls, while differences between the TMC and Congress have been visible for months.
How a Judge Can Be Removed
Under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, any motion for the removal of a judge must carry the signatures of at least 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. The Speaker or Chairman of the House then decides whether to admit or reject the motion. Although commonly referred to as “impeachment,” the Constitution actually deals with this process under Article 124 (for Supreme Court judges) and Article 218 (for High Court judges).
If the motion is admitted, a three-member inquiry panel is set up. It consists of a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. This committee frames charges, examines evidence, and submits its findings to the presiding officer of the House.
If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, the matter is put to vote in both Houses of Parliament. For the motion to pass, it needs a special majority—two-thirds of the members present and voting, and more than half of the total strength of each House. Once both Houses clear the motion, it is sent to the President for final approval.
What Triggered the Current Controversy
In his December 1 order, Justice Swaminathan directed Hindu temple authorities to restore what he described as the traditional lighting of the Thiruparankundram Deepam near a centuries-old dargah. When state officials did not carry out the order, he issued a strongly worded contempt directive and instructed that the petitioner and ten others be escorted by CISF personnel—not the Tamil Nadu police—to perform the ritual. He described the lighting of the lamp as “symbolic but necessary” to uphold judicial authority.
Justice Swaminathan has, in several of his past writings and talks, expressed deep admiration for Hindu philosophy, classical Tamil literature, and the idea of cultural continuity. His judgments in cases involving temple administration, religious practices, and customary traditions often draw upon ancient texts. Some of these rulings—particularly those stating that the State cannot dilute Hindu ritual practices in the name of neutrality or administrative convenience—were later modified or overturned by Division Benches.