Tamil Nadu Advocate General P.S. Raman has declined to give approval for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against former Madras High Court judge D. Hariparanthaman over remarks he made about Justice G.R. Swaminathan in connection with the Thirupparankundram Karthigai Deepam matter decided in December 2025.
In his written communication, Raman stated that he had reviewed the former judge’s comments and clarified that he neither agreed with nor endorsed the opinions expressed. However, he chose not to grant sanction under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, citing the constitutional protections of free speech and the right to critique.
Explaining his decision, the Advocate General observed that the statements were made by a retired High Court judge who would be conscious of the weight of his words. Without delivering a finding on whether the remarks tarnished the institution’s image or imputed motives to a sitting judge, Raman said he was exercising his discretion to close the matter at his level.
At the same time, he clarified that the complainant — Srirangam-based temple activist Rangarajan Narasimhan — remained free to directly approach the Madras High Court under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act if he wished to pursue the issue further.
The request for sanction had been based on two Tamil-language interviews given by the retired judge and uploaded on YouTube on December 4 and 6, 2025. Transcripts submitted with the complaint included a remark in which Hariparanthaman allegedly said that Justice Swaminathan was a “Sanghi,” comparing it to his own ideological leaning as a communist. The Advocate General reviewed both the transcripts and the video recordings before issuing a detailed order.
Addressing the question of impartiality, Raman referred to an instance where the Attorney General had stepped aside from a similar matter involving former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju due to personal acquaintance. He clarified that no such conflict arose in the present case, as his familiarity with Hariparanthaman was limited to professional interactions during his tenure as a judge and earlier as a lawyer.
Raman noted that the central issue before him was whether the interviews constituted criminal contempt. He emphasized that when individuals who have held constitutional office are accused of contempt for public criticism of the judiciary, authorities must exercise heightened caution in deciding whether to permit prosecution.
While underscoring that those who have occupied high constitutional positions ought to maintain restraint in commenting on judges or the judicial system, he also stressed that such remarks must be evaluated within the broader framework of freedom of expression and the legitimate space for criticism.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
