TN chief justice to decide on lawyer who accused judge of casteist bias

The Madras High Court directed proceedings against lawyer S Vanchinathan, who made scandalous remarks about a judge, to be reviewed by the chief justice.

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.

TN chief justice to decide on lawyer who accused judge of casteist bias

The move comes after several retired judges, including justices K Chandru and D Hariparanthaman, issued a rare public appeal last week, urging the bench of justices K Rajasekar and GR Swaminathan to step back, pointing out that the case was being heard by a bench that included justice Swaminathan, the very judge against whom the allegations had been made. The retired judges had urged the present bench to leave the matter to the chief justice.

Last week, the registry of the Madurai bench of the Madras high court had issued summons to Vanchinathan following directions of the bench of justices Rajasekar and Swaminathan. The registry asked Vanchinathan to appear before the bench and clarify if he “stood by” his claims against justice Swaminathan, accusing him of exhibiting casteist and communal bias in his judicial conduct.

On Monday, the bench took note of Vanchinathan’s continued refusal to affirm or deny whether he stood by the accusation, despite being given an opportunity to clarify his stance in writing. The court observed that interviews circulating on social media contained serious imputations and said that while it wished to abide by principles of natural justice, the lawyer had not provided a direct or affirmative response.

“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.

Justice Swaminathan also said the court had not initiated contempt action yet and was only seeking clarity. “This has nothing to do with the complaint you sent to the Hon’ble CJI. We have not initiated any contempt proceedings,” Justice Swaminathan said, reiterating that the present proceedings were independent of Vanchinathan’s June 2025 representation to the Chief Justice of India, making similar claims.

Tensions in court ran high as justice Swaminathan expressed his disapproval of Vanchinathan’s reluctance to respond orally, and criticised him for allegedly undermining judicial independence. The judge also said that the public appeal made by the retired judges was surprising and unfortunate.

“We are also conscious of rule and procedure. We will not be intimidated. While this matter is pending, it is most unfortunate that some retired judges are rendering opinion,” justice Swaminathan said.

The judge then proceeded to dictate the order in the case asking the registry to place he matter before chief justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava in order to preserve “institutional propriety.”

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. He subsequently made several public statements and gave interviews to the local press where he accused justice Swaminathan of favouring certain senior lawyers over others based on the caste they belonged to.

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.

When the layer declined to verbally affirm or retract the petition without a formal query from the bench, the judge directed the registry to issue a written questionnaire, asking, “Whether you, S Vanchinathan stand by your imputation of caste bias on the part of justice GR Swaminathan in the discharge of his judicial duties?”