Madras High Court calls for action against media channels that profit from 'slanderous campaign' against judiciary

The Madras High Court, while hearing a contempt plea against Advocate Vanchinathan for accusing Justice GR Swaminathan of caste and communal bias, remarked that the time has come to regulate the level of discourse on social media.

The Court observed that initiating communal campaigns against judges on social media could ultimately undermine the judicial system.

A Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and K Rajasekar observed,

"In the name of freedom of speech and expression, one cannot condone acts of contempt. The channels which rake in monies by such slanderous campaigns will have to be taken head on. Lawyers who make such statements are guilty of professional misconduct. There is something called laxman rekha which if crossed must invite peril."

The Court also took note of an appeal made by former judges to desist from taking contempt of court action against Vanchinathan, stating,

"Thiru.S.Vanchinathan has mobilized a group of lawyers and retired Judges to rush to his rescue. They have also passed reckless comments without waiting for today's outcome. Gratuitous appeals and advice have poured forth. We ignore them with the contempt which they deserve," the Court added.

It also described the approach taken by ex-judges as "most unfortunate".

"Justice K.Chandru, another former Judge of this Court, published a statement on his behalf and on behalf of a few other retired Judges questioning the process adopted by this bench. 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."

The Court had summoned Vanchinathan in connection with several social media posts and video interviews in which he allegedly accused Justice Swaminathan of acting with communal and caste prejudice in judicial decisions. In response, the Court sought to clarify whether the lawyer stood by these remarks or wished to retract them.

In its order dated July 28, the Court stated that judges take an oath to perform their judicial duties not only without favour but also without fear.

"...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 legal system provides for remedies and recourse has to be taken to them by persons aggrieved by individual decisions."

The Court further noted that Advocate Vanchinathan had previously been suspended by the Bar Council of India for conduct unbecoming of an advocate. On his refusal to reply to the judges query on whether he stood by his statements, the Court said,

"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. He should not evade. When his own interview was played and his attention was pointedly drawn to certain parts of it, he kept on mumbling that it must be given to him in writing."

It ultimately ordered that the case be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

"Thiru.S.Vanchinathan in his reply dated 28.07.2025 has submitted that it is the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Madras High Court who can take a call in the matter. We also have no doubt on this score....We, therefore, direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Madras High Court and it is for the Hon'ble Chief Justice to take such action as His Lordship deems fit and appropriate."

The Court also clarified that a misleading report by Sun News (Tamil news channel) falsely suggested the case was transferred to the Chief Justice in response to public statements by senior lawyers and retired judges.

"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 Court added.

[Read Order]