E-Paper
Madras chief justice to decide on lawyer who accused judge of casteist bias
On July 24, the bench called Vanchinathan to ask if he stood by his comments. Vanchinathan, in turn, sought a written enquiry from the bench.
The Madras high court on Monday directed that proceedings against lawyer S Vanchinathan, accused of making scandalous remarks impugning the judicial integrity of a sitting judge of the court, be placed before the chief justice for further orders.
In an escalating courtroom drama in the state between judicial members, justice Swaminathan, who was sharing the bench with justice K Rajasekar, said that they do not know the basis for such allegations. “I don’t know who called you all revolutionary. You are all comedy pieces,” justice Swaminathan said according to Bar and Bench while presiding over the case himself.
In June this year, Vanchinathan had written to the CJI seeking an inquiry into alleged caste-based favouritism and ideological bias in justice Swaminathan’s courtroom. On July 24, the bench called Vanchinathan to ask if he stood by his comments. Vanchinathan, in turn, sought a written enquiry from the bench.
The case was posted to Monday when the bench clarified that they had summoned him based on his posts on social media and interviews he has been giving to online portals about justice Swaminathan and not on his complaint to the CJI.
“You have assumed two things that have no basis. First, this has nothing to do with the complaint you sent to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. Second, we have not initiated any contempt action till Friday. We only want to clarify your stance — whether you continue to allege caste and communal bias…We clarify once again that the proceedings against him have nothing to do with that complaint,” Bar and Bench quoted the bench as saying.
“We wanted to clarify your stance, if you continue to allege caste and communal bias. For three years, you have been slandering me. I did not take action. But when you allege caste bias, things take a different turn,” Justice Swaminathan told the lawyer during the hearing.
In reply, justice Swaminathan said that it was “unfortunate” that an appeal jointly signed by eight former justices of the Madras high court on July 26 had urged the bench to drop any contempt proceedings against the advocate. It was signed by retired justices K Chandru, D Hariparanthaman, CT Selvam, Akbar Ali, P Kalaiyarasan, S Vimala, KK Sasidharan and SS Sundar.
“In the absence of any action taken by the Chief Justice of India on the petition, it is premature for the learned judges to initiate action,” the statement read citing the procedure being followed in the case of Justice Yaswant Varma of the Allahabad HC.
However, one of the signatories, retired justice Sasidharan dissociated himself from the written statement. “I make it clear that I was not consulted nor have I sent any such written confirmation authorising justice K Chandru to issue the said letter,” former judge Sasidharan said in a letter dated July 26.
Vanchinathan, also a state coordinator for The People’s Rights Protection Centre, in his letter to the CJI — which HT has seen — said that justice Swaminathan prioritised listings for specific advocates “particularly from the Brahmin community and those aligned with right wing ideologies” and that these were not isolated instances but a pattern. He cited instances of cases such as permitting the practice to roll over plantain leaves left behind by devotees after eating in temples superseding a division bench order against it. Another case was on allowing a BJP affiliated petitioner’s case against the state taking over powers of a governor to appoint a vice chancellor to universities during vacation, which Vanchinathan said lacked urgency.
On July 24, while the bench of Justices Rajasekar and Swaminathan were presiding over an unconnected writ appeal from the year 2023, in which Vanchinathan initially appeared for one of the parties, but later withdrew from the case, justice Swaminathan decided to summon Vanchinathan to court the same day.
“He continues to slander the judiciary..It is one thing to criticise judgements but entirely another to cast aspersions on judges,” justice Swaminathan said in his order, seen by HT.
The advocate’s conduct “prima facie constitutes criminal contempt of court,” the justice said and persisted to ask him if he maintained that he is being casteist. On the lawyer’s insistence that he won’t answer orally, the court registry served him a questionnaire, mandating a response. Before the Monday hearing, lawyers protested outside the HC urging the bench to drop action against him.
