TN AG declines consent to initiate contempt against ex-judge for remarks about Justice GR Swaminathan

Tamil Nadu Advocate General PS Raman has declined to grant consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against retired Madras High Court Justice D Hariparanthaman over remarks made about sitting judge Justice GR Swaminathan in YouTube interviews.

As per Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the consent of Advocate General of the concerned State is required before the High Court can hear a criminal contempt petition filed by a private individual.

The permission for contempt was sought by one Rangarajan Narasimhan based on interviews given by the retired judge on December 4 and 6, 2025 on the YouTube channels Nakeeran and Puthiya Thalaimurai – PT Nerpadapesu.

Rangarajan Narasimhan alleged that the interviews contained “reckless, baseless, derogatory, scandalous and contemptuous” statements directed at Justice Swaminathan and the functioning of the Madras High Court.

According to the plea, the retired judge allegedly attributed political and communal bias to Justice Swaminathan’s judicial orders, accused the judge of procedural manipulation and misuse of contempt jurisdiction and also alleged that certain cases were decided to suit a political or ideological agenda.

The plea further claimed that the remarks went beyond criticism of judicial reasoning and directly questioned the integrity and impartiality of a sitting judge.

The petitioner cited several statements from the interviews, including remarks describing judicial actions as “anarchy,” alleging a “corrupt mind,” and asserting that courts are influenced by caste and ideological considerations.

The plea emphasised that such statements, coming from a former judge and repeated across multiple platforms, had a serious tendency to erode public confidence in the judiciary.

After examining the transcripts and video links, the Advocate General recorded that he did not personally concur with or approve of the views expressed in the interviews.

However, he declined to grant consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings.

The Advocate General observed that when persons who have held high constitutional office are accused of contempt for public statements concerning the judiciary or individual judges, greater caution must be exercised while granting sanction.

He referred to a similar episode involving former Supreme Court judge Justice Markandey Katju, where contempt complaints were ultimately dropped.

The order also emphasised that while former constitutional office holders must exercise restraint in commenting on the judiciary, such remarks must be viewed in the context of freedom of speech and the right to criticism.