Madras High Court summons lawyer for accusing judge of communal, casteist bias

The Madras High Court has summoned Advocate S Vanchinathan for accusing Justice GR Swaminathan of exhibiting casteist and communal bias in the discharge of his judicial duties.

A Bench of Justices Swaminathan and K Rajasekar noted that Vanchinathan had previously been suspended by the Bar Council of India (BCI) for conduct deemed unbecoming of an advocate.

"Though he was expected to improve his conduct after revocation of the suspension, it appears that he has not changed his ways. He continues to slander judiciary. The social media is replete with his videos. It is one thing to criticise judgments but entirely another to cast aspersions on judges," the Court observed.

Observing that the lawyer's conduct prima facie amounted to criminal contempt of court, the Court refused to drop the matter and directed the Registry to serve a formal questionnaire to Vanchinathan, asking,

"Do you, S. Vanchinathan, stand by your imputation of caste bias on the part of Justice G.R. Swaminathan in the discharge of his judicial duties?"

The Court emphasised that while criticism of judgments is permissible, casting aspersions on judges and alleging bias without basis amounts to criminal contempt.

"The objective is not to shield individual judges from criticism but to protect public confidence in the administration of justice, which would be undermined if judicial authority is brought into disrepute. While fair, temperate, and good faith criticism is permissible, allegations of partiality, bias, or improper motives strike at the very heart of judicial integrity and are treated with particular seriousness."

The issue arose during the hearing of an appeal in which Vanchinathan had initially filed a vakalat for one of the parties. Upon becoming aware of the serious allegations he made against Justice Swaminathan, the Court directed him to appear in person on July 19.

Appearing before the Court, Vanchinathan did not directly confirm or deny whether he still stood by his accusation. Instead, he stated that he had returned the case papers and was no longer representing the party.

The Court, however, said that dissociation from the case does not negate the seriousness of the allegations made.

The Bench reiterated that personal attacks on judges erode public confidence in the justice system and must be treated seriously. It underscored that contempt proceedings are not intended to protect individual judges, but to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

With these observations, the Court directed Vanchinathan to appear in person on the next date of hearing, July 28.

[Read Order]