Former Madras High Court judge K Chandru, long known for his ideological activism and open alignment with Left/Dravidianist politics, has again inserted himself into public controversy; this time by attacking sitting Madras High Court judge Justice GR Swaminathan for the “crime” of believing in the Vedas and speaking at events organised by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
Chandru’s intervention came after over 100 I.N.D.I. bloc MPs, led by the DMK, moved a motion seeking Justice Swaminathan’s impeachment. Even as the political machinery of the ruling Tamil Nadu establishment went into overdrive, Chandru enthusiastically amplified their narrative, delivering a series of allegations that mirror DMK talking points.
Speaking at a legal event organized by the advocates’ wing of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) in October 2025, Chandru says Justice Swaminathan had “betrayed his oath to the Constitution” – a claim Chandru justified solely on the grounds that the judge had publicly stated his reverence for Hindu scriptures and spoken about the historical evolution of the Constitution. The former judge even went so far as to call Swaminathan a “strange person,” declaring that remarks about the Constitution being influenced by the Government of India Act “strike at the heart of the constitutional order.”
Chandru framed Swaminathan’s attendance at RSS-linked events as evidence of misconduct, asserting that the sitting judge behaves “as if he is the propaganda secretary of the RSS.” He further complained that Swaminathan’s belief in the Vedas is “the least expected of a sitting judge,” revealing more about Chandru’s own ideological prejudice than any breach of judicial ethics.
In line with his long-standing hostility toward Hindu cultural expression, Chandru condemned Swaminathan’s speeches praising the Vedic tradition and accused him of “denigrating the Constitution” – an inversion of reality given that Chandru himself has a decades-long record of politicising the judiciary through Marxist activism.
Speaking to The Print, Chandru defended the impeachment attempt initiated by DMK MPs, insisting that removal is the only remedy for what he labelled “misbehaviour.” He claimed that Swaminathan’s conduct, and not merely his judicial orders, was “unbecoming,” and concluded that a judge who believes in the Vedas or speaks at RSS events is unfit for the judiciary.
This attack is rich with irony, coming from a figure like Chandru, whose own career has been marked by open allegiance to communist and DMK-aligned causes. His past reveals a consistent pattern of political advocacy, now repackaged as a defense of judicial secularism. For Chandru and his political masters in the DMK, “secularism” appears to be a one-way street, hostile to any public affirmation of Hindu faith while being conspicuously silent on other forms of identity politics.
Chandru’s sudden constitutional purism is belied by his own history as a fellow traveler of communist propaganda, an ideology historically antagonistic to the very constitutional framework he now claims to protect. His transformation into the chief accuser in this impeachment drama exposes the move for what it is: not a principled stand for judicial integrity, but a politically motivated witch-hunt against a judge whose cultural worldview does not conform to the anti-Hindu secularism of the I.N.D.I. bloc and its fellow travelers.
Who Is ‘Justice’ Chandru?
Former Justice of Madras High Court, Chandru, who has been at the center of controversy following his involvement in the Dravidianist propaganda movie ‘Jai Bhim’, known for his vocal opposition to the central government and his strong alignment with the DMK. His political views and support for Dravidian ideologies have often led to criticisms, particularly his proposals aimed at eradicating caste distinctions in schools. Under the guise of his role in the ‘One Man Commission,’ Chandru controversially recommended measures that appeared to specifically target Hindu practices among students, such as the removal of spiritual symbols like the sacred ropes tied around their wrists, wearing Vibuthi among others.
He has made casteist and sexist remarks about Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in his social media posts.
In a Facebook post, former Judge of the Madras High Court had commented that Annamalai is making a route for a Rajya Sabha seat through Karnataka just like “Oorugaai Ammaiyaar” – a casteist and a sexist reference to Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s Brahmin and woman identity.
Oorugaai Ammaiyaar in Tamil means “a woman who makes pickles”. This reference is used because it is said that women from Tamil Brahmin community make good pickles.
It is not just a casteist reference but is also sexist and highly misogynistic that indirectly implies that women from Brahmin commmunity are good for only making pickles.
Following this, many on social media called out the casteist and sexist mindset who had once wielded the pen of justice.
Jai Bhim
Remember the film Jai Bhim, made by Dravidianist stooge actor Sooriya and his character was based on the same Justice Chandru. In the film Advocate K Chandru, portrayed as an uncompromising crusader, was accused in 2021 of doing the opposite in the real case. According to a leaked audio clip from Anthony Samy’s nephew, Chandru and certain Communist Party members allegedly demanded ₹5 lakh from the accused Sub-Inspector to avoid implicating him in Rajakannu’s custodial-death case. When Anthony Samy supposedly could offer only ₹2 lakh, the group is accused of deciding to “trap him fully” instead. These allegations starkly contradict the film’s claim that Chandru fought the case without taking a single rupee.
In June 2024, Justice Chandru’s one-man committee report drew sharp criticism for recommendations seen as targeting only Hindus under the guise of preventing caste violence. The report began with an Ambedkar quote on Hindus “revising old values,” framing the entire exercise as Hindu-specific. Key proposals such as removing caste names from Hindu institutions, restricting donor names, monitoring teachers, banning sacred threads and forehead marks, regulating bicycle colours, and creating a “Social Justice Student Force” were viewed as impractical, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. Critics argued the report ignored similar practices in other religions and ultimately attacks Hindu identity rather than addressing caste discrimination.
In July 2025, Justice Chandru intervened in the contempt case involving Advocate S. Vanchinathan by issuing a letter, claiming support from seven other retired judges, urging the Madras High Court not to pursue contempt action. This prompted sharp criticism from the Bench, which called the intervention “gratuitous” and “unfortunate.” One retired judge, KK Sasidharan, publicly denied giving Chandru any authorization, contradicting Chandru’s claim. The Court held that such interference, while proceedings were pending, amounted to contempt, and Justice Swaminathan rebuked the attempt as part of an “ecosystem” trying to intimidate the judiciary.
In February 2025, he sparked controversy again with an inappropriate Facebook comment. Responding to a DMK functionary’s sensual “Kiss Day” post, Chandru wrote, “We now have the metric system… now write poetry in metric measurements!!” – a remark widely seen as snide and unnecessary. The Dravidianist actor-anchor replied in surprise, saying he thought Chandru was “only a judge,” not “Ramanujan,” and did not expect him on such a page. Critics argued this was yet another instance of Chandru, who presented himself as a social-justice crusader, making improper or intrusive comments on social media.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.