The DMK government and anti-Hindu Dravidian Stockists are once again going to suffer a serios meltdown as Madras High Court Judge Justice GR Swaminathan lit a lamp resembling the Deepathoon of Thirupparankundram Hil at an event organized in Chennai by Dhara Foundation.

Giving more heartburns to the Dravidian Model government, Justice GR Swaminathan said “I’ve only one doubt. That is not a survey stone right?”

Taking a sly jibe against those who moved impeachment motion against him, Justice GR Swaminathan made it clear that he intends to carry out his judicial duties independently and faithfully for the remainder of his tenure, which extends roughly another four and a half years.

“I think that I still have 4.5 years of service. I don’t think they will remove me before that. In these 4.5 years that I am going to stay, I want to show excellence, keep Sanatana Dharma in heart. This event has given me the energy for that.“, he said.

The Thirupparankundram Deepam Case

Thirupparankundram is a historic hill in Madurai that hosts the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple and, higher up, the Sikandar Badusha Dargah. Traditionally, the Karthigai Deepam ritual — a festival flame lit during the Tamil month of Karthigai — has been observed at a lower shrine (Uchipillaiyar), not atop the hill. Over time this became an accepted practice tied to local custom and concerns over communal sensitivity.

In December 2025, a petitioner sought judicial directions to permit the Deepam lamp to be lit at an ancient stone pillar (Deepathoon) on the hilltop — terrain the petitioner argued belonged to the temple and historically linked to the ritual. Justice Swaminathan, on a single-bench ruling, ordered that proper arrangements be made for the lamp to be lit at that hilltop shrine and emphasised that the land is temple property and ritual rights must be respected.

When the Tamil Nadu government and temple authorities did not immediately comply, instead following the conventional practice at the lower shrine, Swaminathan initiated contempt proceedings, quashed prohibitory police orders, and directed that security be provided to ensure the ritual could be carried out at the hilltop location.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “This Isn’t Survey Stone Right?”: Justice GR Swaminathan Lights Thiruparankundram Deepathoon Replica appeared first on The Commune.

Days before the opening of the 49th Chennai Book Fair, a controversy erupted over the inclusion of a book that openly vilifies a sitting judge of the Madras High Court, Justice GR Swaminathan, raising concerns about the targeting of the judiciary through ideological publishing platforms.

A formal complaint seeking registration of an FIR has since been filed with the Chennai Police against the authors and publishers of the book, alleging criminal defamation, deliberate scandalisation of the judiciary, and circulation of offensive material. The complaint argues that the use of a major public book fair to circulate such material lends legitimacy to personal attacks on a constitutional authority.

The publication, titled “Thirupparankundram Issue: GR Swaminathan – Judge or RSS Rowdy?”, carries a caricature of Justice Swaminathan in judicial robes and is priced at ₹30. Rather than engaging with any specific judgment or legal reasoning, the book questions the legitimacy of the judge himself, blurring the line between critique of judicial decisions and personal vilification.

Chennai resident S Muralidharan has lodged a formal complaint with the city police seeking registration of an FIR against those responsible for the book’s authorship, publication, advertisement, and distribution.

In his complaint, Muralidharan states that the book and its promotional material amount to “criminal defamation, deliberate scandalisation of the judiciary, promotion of hatred, and circulation of offensive material targeting a sitting judge”. He further alleges that the caricatures and captions are “designed to lower the dignity of a constitutional court, malign the judge’s impartiality, and provoke public distrust against the justice delivery system.”

The complaint invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to offences such as criminal defamation, promotion of enmity, and acts tending to scandalise or lower the authority of courts, and also notes the applicability of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.

According to the complainant, filing the complaint itself became an ordeal. He said he was made to shuttle between multiple police jurisdictions, Kotturpuram, Saidapet, and Butt Road, before the office of the Joint Commissioner of Police (South Zone) finally accepted the complaint. An acknowledgement has since been issued, and an action taken report is awaited.

Filed a complaint of criminal defamation, deliberate scandalisation of the judiciary, spreading hate and circulation of offensive material against the publishers of this book about Hon’ble GRSJ.

I was made to run from Kotturpuram to Saidapet to Butt road and finally the JCs… pic.twitter.com/0XR20M5t7W

— S. Muralidharan (@BalambalMurali) January 5, 2026

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Complaint Filed Over Derogatory Book Targeting Justice GR Swaminathan As ‘RSS Rowdy’ Ahead Of Chennai Book Fair appeared first on The Commune.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has delivered a significant ruling on religious freedom and the public’s right to access common land. The court granted permission to a Hindu organization to organize an Annadhanam (community meal) in Dindigul district, despite objections claiming the venue had been exclusively used for Christian Easter events for more than a hundred years. Citing Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, the court affirmed that the freedom to practice and propagate one’s faith is a protected fundamental right.

The bench emphasized that local officials and the police are obligated to safeguard this constitutional right rather than curtail it on the pretext of potential “law and order” problems. It noted that maintaining order is the responsibility of the police, not an excuse to deny citizens their lawful freedoms.

The judgment arose from a petition filed by a devotee who had sought permission to hold an Annadhanam near the Kaliyamman Temple on a public ground. His request was denied by local authorities, who instead suggested conducting the event on a public road. Finding this arbitrary and discriminatory, the petitioner approached the High Court. When questioned, the police justified their refusal by claiming the event might trigger disturbances.

During the proceedings, the court learned that a permanent stage had been constructed on one side of the ground about a century ago, and local Christian groups traditionally used it for Easter festivities. Members of that community argued that Hindus had never been allowed to conduct religious activities on the site. A 2017 peace committee meeting had also recorded an understanding that only “customary events” would continue there.

Justice G.R. Swaminathan, presiding over the case, examined the land’s ownership and found that the open area was classified as gramamatham—public land under panchayat control—and therefore belonged to the state. The judge held that any land owned by the government must remain open for all citizens, irrespective of faith or community.

He reasoned that denying access to a group solely because of its religion would constitute discrimination prohibited under Article 15 of the Constitution. In his words, “A public ground should be available for the use of all communities or none.” The court thus rejected the idea that Christians could use the ground for Easter but Hindus could not use it for Annadhanam.

At the same time, Justice Swaminathan clarified that the Christian community’s exclusive use of the ground during Easter must be respected, and no other event should be permitted during that period.

The judgment also took note of the demographics of the village, which comprises roughly 2,500 Christian families and 400 Hindu families. The court criticized the authorities for citing community opposition as a reason to deny permission, calling it “a very sorry state of affairs.” The judge further stressed the need for interfaith goodwill, remarking that all religious festivals should be occasions for participation, not exclusion.

In a touching personal reflection, he said, “When a Christian friend celebrates Christmas, I should greet him first,” recalling how a Muslim friend once made vegetarian Nonbu Kanji so he could share in the meal. “Such is the beauty of our culture,” he observed, adding that this spirit of mutual respect is essential for communal harmony.

Ultimately, the court overturned the authorities’ rejection order and directed the Tahsildar to grant permission for the Annadhanam at the requested public ground. The petitioner, however, was instructed to handle all logistical arrangements and to restore the venue to its original condition after the event.

Source: LawChakra

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally. 

The post “Can’t Accept That Christians Can Use Ground For Easter But Hindus Can’t Do Annadhanam”: Madras High Court Intervenes To Ensure Public Ground Belongs To All In TN Village appeared first on The Commune.

The judiciary is often regarded as the last bastion of hope for the common citizen; a pillar designed to stand above political pressures and ideological influence. India’s Constitution-makers, recognizing this vital role, ensured the judicial system was built to function independently. However, in Tamil Nadu, this very principle is under coordinated attack by factions aligned with the Left, Communists, and Dravidianist movements, who appear determined to subvert judicial independence in favor of their political agenda. When verdicts don’t align with their ideology, their strategy shifts from dissent to outright intimidation of judges through propagating malice and defamation.

A glaring instance of this trend is the recent targeting of Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court, who came under personal and professional attack from advocate Vanchinathan, a Communist, a figure now being aggressively defended by the Dravidianist, Periyarist, and left-wing ecosystem.

Who Is Advocate Vanchinathan? And Why Is He Being Shielded By DMK Ecosystem?

Contrary to the image being painted by his sympathizers, Advocate Vanchinathan is not a dispassionate human rights defender. He has long been associated with the People’s Right Protection Centre, a pressure group with a history of aligning with disruptive causes. He has served as its state organizer and has played a prominent role in campaigns that often appear more politically motivated than rooted in public interest.

Vanchinathan was a vocal opponent of the Sterlite Copper plant in Thoothukudi, a protest that turned violent and controversial. He has consistently aligned himself against key infrastructure and policy initiatives, from the eight-lane highway project to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). His activism often resembles that of an ideological foot soldier for the DMK and affiliated leftist coalitions, rather than an impartial legal advocate.

The Kudankulam Anti-Nuclear Protests (2012): A Blockade Against Development

In 2012, a group of nearly 20 lawyers led by Advocate S. Vanchinathan practicing at the Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench staged a protest within the court premises. Their demonstration condemned the police action taken against agitators opposing the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tirunelveli and urged the central government to halt fuel loading into the reactor.

This protest wasn’t an isolated event. It was part of a broader, well-organized campaign that became one of the most significant attempts to derail a strategic energy project in southern India. The Union Home Ministry eventually revoked the licenses of three NGOs operating in Tamil Nadu, alleging they misused foreign funds to support and intensify the anti-nuclear protests.

This crackdown followed a public statement by then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who suggested that foreign-funded NGOs, particularly from the U.S., were behind the agitation that delayed a major infrastructure project. The first of two 1000-MW Russian-assisted reactors was scheduled for commissioning in late 2011 but was stalled due to the ongoing unrest.

Minister of State V. Narayanasamy later confirmed punitive action against the involved NGOs. Though he did not initially disclose names, he had earlier pointed fingers at organizations linked to Bishop Yvon Ambroise of Tuticorin, who had allegedly received ₹54 crore in foreign funds and was instrumental in mobilizing opposition.

Among those named were the Tuticorin Diocese Association (TDA) and Tuticorin Multipurpose Social Service Society (TMSSS), both Christian organizations under scrutiny for funding and promoting the protests. Other groups like People’s Education for Action and Liberation (PEAL) and Good Vision were also flagged. TMSSS alone had received ₹42 crore over five years, ostensibly for rural development. However, their funds and activities were later found to be intertwined with anti-development protests.

Sterlite Protests: Escalating Dissent Into Violence

In June 2018, Vanchinathan was arrested at Chennai Airport upon arrival from Delhi. He was accused of inciting the violent anti-Sterlite protests in Thoothukudi, where police firing tragically resulted in 13 civilian deaths. Along with fellow lawyer Hari Raghavan, Vanchinathan was booked under various IPC sections including rioting, criminal force against public servants, and for damages under the Tamil Nadu Property Prevention Act.

Following the arrest, a police team conducted searches at his residence in KK Nagar, Madurai, seizing documents and protest material. His role in the protests is viewed by authorities not as advocacy, but as direct involvement in orchestrating unrest.

Ironically, it was Justice GR Swaminathan who granted bail to Vanchinathan during this case.

CAA-NRC Protests And Provocative Speeches (2020): Ideological Rhetoric Disguised As Activism

In early 2020, Vanchinathan again made headlines for his involvement in protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC). He was scheduled to speak at a large rally in Trichy organized by the People’s Right Protection Centre (PRPC), where he serves as a state coordinator. The event was denied permission by local authorities, citing public order concerns. But later was granted permission by the High Court.

Later, in a separate event under the guise of criticizing CAA-NRC his speeches were filled with incendiary political rhetoric. In a seminar at Tiruvannamalai, he accused the Modi government and the RSS of orchestrating violence against JNU students and suppressing intellectual dissent. His statements went beyond critique of legislation; they bordered on personal attacks and conspiratorial narratives, including claims of RSS infiltration in academic institutions and state complicity in campus violence.

His speech, titled “NRC: Are We Becoming Second-Class Citizens in a Hindu Rashtra?” was a tirade against what he described as “Brahminical politics” and “corporate looting” by Adani and Ambani. He claimed that policies like NEET and the New Education Policy were part of a larger agenda to deny education to the underprivileged and to stifle critical thinking.

He also defended controversial statements made by Tamil scholar Nellai Kannan who made contentious remarks against Prime Minister Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah questioning the grounds of his arrest and mocking the intelligence of the Prime Minister in highly derogatory terms.

Targeting Hindu Organizations: Selective Outrage and Legal Intimidation

In an equally revealing move, Vanchinathan filed FIRs against several leaders associated with Hindu organizations, including the Hindu Munnani and members of the RSS and BJP, accusing them of inciting religious discord during the Murugan Manadu event. The list included political figures like Annamalai (BJP), Nainar Nagendran, and senior leaders from the Hindu Munnani.

During the peak of the Thiruparankundram controversy, when certain Muslim fundamentalist groups referred to the hills as “Sikkandar Hills” and asserted the right to perform sacrifices at the hilltop dargah Advocate Vanchinathan actively supported the fundamentalist side and propagated claims that sacrificial rituals had historically taken place on the temple hills. However, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HRCE) Department denied these claims, and the individuals from the Muslim community who made them were reportedly unable to provide any documentary evidence supporting the occurrence of such sacrifices at Thiruparankundram Hills. Furthermore, in his speeches, Vanchinathan alleged that Lord Murugan had been appropriated and renamed ‘Subramanian’ under a Vedic identity.

The consistent pattern emerging from Vanchinathan’s actions reveals more than isolated incidents of activism. His legal and public interventions almost exclusively target pro-Hindu, nationalist, or development-centric policies and organizations while routinely defending or being backed by the Dravidianist, Periyarist, and leftist political ecosystems.

Not Just A Lawyer, But A Dravidianist Political Actor

Advocate Vanchinathan’s track record does not reflect that of a neutral human rights defender, but rather of a deeply ideological figure whose activism routinely aligns with a specific political narrative. From Kudankulam to Sterlite, from anti-CAA rallies to aggressive targeting of Hindu groups, his actions suggest a broader agenda designed to challenge the state and national leadership, often using legal tools and public discourse to propagate a one-sided ideological viewpoint.

The repeated defense and support he receives from leftist and Dravidianist groups only underscores that Vanchinathan is not acting in isolation. He is a key player in a larger ideological campaign one that poses serious questions about the politicization of activism, the misuse of legal mechanisms, and the erosion of institutional neutrality in the name of dissent.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Advocate Or Urban Naxal? From Kudankulam To Sterlite Protest, Who Is This Vanchinathan, That The DMK Ecosystem Is Backing Heavily To Target Justice GR Swaminathan appeared first on The Commune.

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court on 28 July 2025 referred proceedings to the Chief Justice for initiating criminal contempt action against Advocate S. Vanchinathan, who is accused of repeatedly making allegations of caste bias against sitting judge Justice GR Swaminathan.

The matter was heard by Justices GR Swaminathan and K Rajasekar. During the hearing, Justice Swaminathan issued a sharp rebuke to some retired judges who had written to the Division Bench requesting it not to initiate contempt action against Vanchinathan. The Court took exception to the insinuation that the contempt proceedings were a form of retaliation against Vanchinathan for a prior complaint he had submitted against Justice Swaminathan to the Chief Justice of India.

Justice Swaminathan, addressing Vanchinathan directly in court, said, “We are also conscious of the Rule and Procedure. We are not fools. Tell this to the retired Judges who are standing with you. The whole ecosystem has ganged up behind you. We are aware of that. We will not be intimidated. We will not be cowed down. Judicial independence is supreme.”

The letter in question was issued on Saturday by retired Justice K. Chandru, who claimed to have secured written confirmation from seven other retired judges of the High Court. However, retired Justice KK Sasidharan publicly dissociated himself from the letter, stating, “I make it clear that I was not consulted nor have I sent any such ‘written confirmation’ authorizing Mr. Justice K. Chandru to issue the said letter.”

Calling the retired judges’ intervention “unfortunate,” the Bench noted in its order, “It is most unfortunate that gratuitous advice was given by certain retired Judges of this Court.”
Justice Swaminathan further remarked in court that their actions “amount to contempt, since the Court is seized of the matter.”

The Court also played in open court an interview allegedly given by Vanchinathan, in which he made remarks insinuating caste bias on the part of Justice Swaminathan. “Let the whole Bar watch,” Justice Swaminathan said while screening the clip.

Vanchinathan, appearing in person, refused to respond to the Court’s questions regarding the contents of the video unless he received a written notice. “I will only respond to what is given to me in writing,” he said.

Justice Swaminathan replied, “Mr. Vanchinathan, I, hundred per cent, respect your right to brutally criticise my judgments, you are entitled to it. I will be the first person to stand with you. But when you are alleging caste bias, things take a different turn. That, I will not tolerate.” He added, “Last 3, 4 years, you have been slandering me. I have not taken any action against you.”

He also pointed to previous instances, stating that Vanchinathan had claimed in an interview that he was biased against Senior Advocate P. Wilson “because he was not a Brahmin.”

Despite repeated questioning, Vanchinathan refused to confirm or deny his prior remarks, maintaining that he would only respond to a formal charge in writing.

The Court reiterated that the current proceedings were unrelated to Vanchinathan’s earlier complaint to the Chief Justice of India. The Bench stated in its order:

“We fail to understand as to the basis on which such atrocious allegation has been made against the Court… We clarify once again that the proceedings on hand has nothing to do with the alleged complaint said to have been given by Vanchinathan.”

It added, “We did not want to straightaway refer the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to consider taking action. We wanted to comply with the principles of natural justice. That is why one of the videos was played in the presence of the members of the Bar. But Vanchinathan was not willing to own up the contents of the video.”

Noting Vanchinathan’s continued refusal to clarify his position, the Court concluded, “We place on record that Vanchinathan is not giving an affirmative answer to the specific question posed by this Court… These are only tentative observations made by this Court. As requested by Vanchinathan himself, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble Chief Justice to consider taking appropriate action, if so deemed fit.”

The controversy dates back to 24 July 2025, when the Court asked Vanchinathan to appear and clarify whether he stood by his alleged imputation of caste bias against Justice Swaminathan. On Monday, the Bench held that the advocate’s conduct prima facie constituted criminal contempt of court.

(With inputs from Verdictum)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “We Will Not Be Intimidated”: Justice GR Swaminathan Slams ‘Ecosystem’ Backing Advocate Vanchinathan appeared first on The Commune.

The ongoing controversy surrounding Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has exposed a disturbing pattern: politically charged attacks on the judiciary, unauthorized interventions by retired judges, and brazen interference from political actors.

What Triggered The Controversy?

The controversy began when the People’s Rights Protection Centre sent a confidential letter to the Chief Justice of India and members of the Collegium, accusing Justice G.R. Swaminathan of caste and communal bias. Advocate S. Vanchinathan was listed among the signatories. Though the letter was confidential, its contents found their way into the public domain through orchestrated leaks.

Contrary to false public narratives, Justice Swaminathan clarified in open court that no contempt proceedings had been initiated until Friday, 26 July 2025. The Court had only issued a summons to the advocate to seek clarification on whether he stood by his public statements that accused the judge of bias. The issue had nothing to do with the confidential complaint to the Chief Justice of India.

“You are a comedy piece”: Judge confronts unfounded allegations

At the hearing held before a bench comprising Justice Swaminathan and Justice K. Rajasekar, the judge confronted Advocate Vanchinathan with a video clip of his past remarks and asked him directly whether he stood by them. Vanchinathan, instead of responding to the contents of his own video, chose to remain evasive and requested that the Court pass a written order.

The judge, visibly perturbed by the lawyer’s lack of accountability, remarked, “You are a comedy piece.” He further noted, “I don’t know who called you all revolutionary. You are all comedy pieces.”

Justice Swaminathan stated firmly that while harsh criticism of judicial decisions is welcome, accusations of caste or communal bias go beyond permissible free speech. “I 100 per cent respect your right to brutally criticise my judgments. But when you are alleging caste bias, things take a different turn,” he said.

He also observed, “For four years, you have been slandering me. I have not taken any action against you. We are not fools. We are conscious of procedural rules and have only sought clarification. Judicial independence is supreme.”

Retired Judges’ Irresponsible Intervention

In an unprecedented move, eight retired judges, led by Justice K. Chandru, publicly released a letter calling the contempt proceedings “premature.” This intervention was heavily criticized by the bench, as it sought to influence ongoing judicial proceedings – an act clearly amounting to interference and scandalising of the judiciary.

Adding to the absurdity, Justice K.K. Sasidharan, whose name was included as one of the eight retired judges, issued a public statement categorically dissociating himself from the letter. He clarified unequivocally, “I was not consulted nor have I sent any such ‘written confirmation’ authorizing Mr. Justice K. Chandru to issue the said letter.” This revelation exposes the irresponsible haste and disregard for propriety by these retired judges, further eroding the credibility of their intervention.

Political Opportunism by VCK Leader

Amidst this institutional crisis, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) leader Thol. Thirumavalavan issued a public statement demanding the intervention of the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court against Justice Swaminathan. Such political meddling represents a brazen attempt to exploit judicial proceedings for partisan ends. Thirumavalavan’s call for external intervention demonstrates blatant disregard for judicial independence, placing him squarely within the ambit of criminal contempt under Sections 2(c)(i) and 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Precedents Demand Action Against Ex-Judges and Politicians

The judiciary has consistently held that scandalising judges or influencing judicial proceedings is intolerable. Even Justice Markandey Katju, a former Supreme Court judge, faced contempt proceedings in 2017 for publicly criticising a judicial decision. His subsequent apology underscored the gravity of such contempt.

In a landmark case, the Supreme Court convicted sitting High Court judge Justice C.S. Karnan for contempt, highlighting that no individual, regardless of their standing, is immune from judicial accountability when institutional dignity is at stake.

Furthermore, recent judgments, such as the conviction of advocate Prashant Bhushan for contempt (2020), the imprisonment and practice ban imposed on advocate Seema Sapra, and the criminal contempt proceedings against individuals who made defamatory remarks on social media against Justice Surya Kant, reinforce the judiciary’s consistent stance against reckless public attacks.

Given these robust precedents, there exists a strong case for initiating contempt proceedings against the retired judges and political figures who have openly scandalised and attempted to intimidate the judiciary.

Advocate’s History Of Misconduct

It is also worth noting that Advocate S. Vanchinathan was suspended by the Bar Council of India in 2015 for professional misconduct. This is not the first time he has been involved in controversies undermining the judiciary. His consistent pattern of conduct points to a deliberate effort to erode public confidence in the courts.

Time To Uphold Judicial Sanctity

The judiciary is under siege from retired judges who violate propriety, from politicians who exploit caste narratives, and from lawyers who abuse the shield of free speech to target individual judges. Justice Swaminathan’s unwavering stance in defending judicial independence is commendable. His clear declaration – “We will not be cowed down”, reaffirms the judiciary’s strength and resilience.

The time has come for the legal system to pull up not just errant lawyers, but also former judges and politicians who recklessly trample upon judicial dignity. If even a former apex court judge like Justice Katju could be hauled up for contempt, there is no reason why the same yardstick should not apply to the retired judges and political leaders involved in this case.

The rule of law must remain supreme, and its guardians must remain unswayed by theatrics and threats.

Shailendar Karthikeyan is the Editor of Nyayavimarsha.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Rogue Politicians, Retired Judges, And A Suspended Lawyer: Inside The Coordinated Plot To Intimidate Justice GR Swaminathan appeared first on The Commune.

The vacation bench of the Madras High Court on 21 May 2025, comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayan issued an interim stay on the Tamil Nadu government’s amendments that removed the Governor’s authority to appoint Vice-Chancellors to state-run universities. The ruling came as a setback to the DMK-led government and triggered a wave of backlash from the Dravidianist ecosystem.

A deeply troubling pattern, a coordinated outburst on social media platforms, largely from self-identified Dravidianists and Periyarist sympathizers (followers of anti-Hindu demagogue EV Ramasamy Naicker), including party cadres and activists. Instead of engaging with the legal reasoning behind the judgment, the outrage targeted the personal identities of the judges—especially their caste backgrounds.

The vitriol was particularly directed at Justices Swaminathan and Lakshminarayan, with Dravidianist media highlighting them as Brahmins with their traditional appearance, such as wearing vibuthi or kungumam. This trend of highlighting a judge’s caste—especially when rulings go against the DMK—has been repeatedly observed in certain sections of Tamil Nadu media and social commentary.

One prominent example is Puthiya Thalaimurai, a media outlet known for its DMK leanings. While it typically avoids mentioning judges’ names in routine cases, it prominently displayed the names and photos of the judges in this particular instance when ideological or political interests are at stake.

This episode has raised serious concerns about how social media and sections of the mainstream media are being used to target sitting judges, undermining the judiciary’s independence and fueling identity-based hostility.

Below are some notable examples of social media posts from Dravidianist and Periyarist accounts targeting the judges in question.

M. Mathivathani, Deputy General Secretary of Dravidar Kazhagam, invoked the words of E.V. Ramasamy Naicker, to mock the judgment, implying that when Brahmins preside over the courts, rulings tend to reflect such biases. She stated “A country where the Paapan (derogatory slur denoting Brahmins) becomes the judge and the ruler is like a jungle inhabited by a ferocious tiger. That is why we are engaged in a tiger hunt. When the tiger leaps, one or two people are bound to get hit! – Thanthai Periyar”

பார்ப்பான் நீதிபதியாய், ஆட்சியாளராய் இருக்கும் நாடு கடும்புலி வாழும் காடேயாகும். ஆதலால், நாங்கள் புலிவேட்டை ஆடுகிறோம். புலி மேலே பாய்ந்ததில் ஒருவர் இருவர் அடிபட வேண்டியதுதான்!

-தந்தை பெரியார்

— S.M.Mathivadhani (@MMathivadhani) May 21, 2025

DMK student wing secretary R. Rajiv Gandhi ridiculed the judgment using Brahmin-associated slang terms like “Ivaaluku” and “Avaaluku,” mockingly highlighting the judges’ castes while commenting on their verdict, stating, “Swaminathan @ Lakshminarayanan!!! No matter what the Constitution says,
no matter what the Supreme Court says, no matter what laws the Legislative Assembly passes —whatever he says alone is the law, justice, and dharma!”

சுவாமிநாதன் @ லட்சுமிநாரயணன்!!!

இவாளுக்கு அரசியலமைப்புச் சட்டம் என்ன சொன்னாலும்,உச்சநீதின்றம் என்ன சொன்னாலும்!!
சட்டமன்றம் என்ன சட்டம் இயற்றினாலும்!!

அவாள் வச்சது தான் சட்டம்,நீதி,தர்மம் எல்லாம்!!

— R.Rajiv Gandhi (@rajiv_dmk) May 21, 2025

Another DMK sympathizer named Kabilan cited E.V. Ramasamy’s words to mock the Brahmin identity of the judges responsible for the judgment. He said, “When we fight and bring in laws, the Paapan will have already taken control of the courts. – Periyar.”

நாம் போராடி சட்டங்களை கொண்டு வரும்
போது பார்ப்பான் நீதிமன்றங்களை கைப்பற்றி இருப்பான் ~ பெரியார் pic.twitter.com/1Cq2POAyN5

— கபிலன் (@_kabilans) May 21, 2025

Another Periyarist named Varavanaisenthil remarked that the timing of the verdict—delivered by Brahmin judges—was the “right moment” to instill anti-Brahmin sentiment among the younger generation. He said, “There is no need to worry too much about the stay of the verdict. The Supreme Court will definitely slipper them. But for the younger generation, this will be an event that shows to what extent Brahminism will go to protect its power even in this era. This is a wonderful opportunity for the younger generation to expose Brahmin terrorism!”

தீர்ப்புக்கு தடை குறித்தெல்லாம் பெரிதாய் கவலைப்பட தேவையில்லை. கண்டிப்பாக உச்சநீதிமன்றம் செருப்பாலடிக்கும்.

ஆனால் இளைய தலைமுறைக்கு இந்த காலத்திலும் பார்ப்பனியம் தன் அதிகாரத்தை பாதுகாத்து கொள்ள எந்த எல்லைக்கும் செல்லும் என்பதற்கான நிகழ்வாக இது இருக்கும். இளம் தலைமுறைக்கு…

— வரவணை செந்தில் (@Varavanaisen) May 22, 2025

Another DMK sympathizer named Selva said, “Parpana Lobby”

Parpana Lobby

— Annanagar Selvakumar DMK (@Selva_Annanagar) May 21, 2025

Another Dravidian sympathizer, known by the name Athiradhi Ashok, made a highly offensive remark, stating, “The Brahmin scoundrel who stayed the Supreme Court verdict 1 G R Swaminathan 2 Lakshmi Narayan. Both of them were lustful and cruel people who r*p*d their own mothers.” 

உச்சநீதிமன்றத் தீர்ப்புக்கு தடை விதித்த பார்ப்பன அயோக்கியனுக
1 ஜி ஆர் சுவாமிநாதன்
2 லட்சுமி நாராயணன்
ஆகிய இருவரும் பெற்ற தாயை வன்புணர்ந்த காமக் கொடூரன்கள் . pic.twitter.com/7PqjrBeg3J

— அதிரடி அசோக் (@Arivazhi) May 22, 2025

Another DMK sympathizer said, “There are three lowly BJP slave Brahmin Sangi judges in the Madras High Court: Swaminathan, Lakshmi Narayan, and Anand Venkatesh. All three of these are cruel and poisonous snakes.”

சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தின் கீழ்த்தனமான பாஜக அடிமை பார்ப்பன சங்கி நீதிபதிகள் மூன்று பேர் இருக்கிறார்கள் சுவாமிநாதன், லட்சுமி நாராயணன், ஆனந்த் வெங்கடேஷ். இந்த மூன்று பேரும் கொடூர நச்சுப் பாம்புகள் pic.twitter.com/8xb38r9iRl

— Mansoor MADURAI DMK (@arib_mansoor) May 22, 2025

Another Dravidian sympathizer said, “A paapan called GR Swaminathan.”

GR Swaminathan endra papaan https://t.co/43KpoNR0LN

— Media Scarecrow (@MSMscarecrow) May 22, 2025

He continued to rant, saying “Standard of anti-DMK, anti-Dravidians “judge” GR Swaminathan of #MadrasHighCourt #Modi govt made him ASG in 2014, judge in 2017. So, it is payback time for GRS. Servility towards #BJP…”

Standard of anti-DMK, anti-Dravidians "judge" GR Swaminathan of #MadrasHighCourt #Modi govt made him ASG in 2014, judge in 2017.
So, it is payback time for GRS. Servility towards #BJP…#Stalin #DMK #AIADMK pic.twitter.com/jXo7YqF3Pw

— Media Scarecrow (@MSMscarecrow) May 22, 2025

Another DMK symphathizer named Malligai Manalan said, “It’s like a street gang-style kangaroo court in session! Can the vacation bench of the judiciary be used for judges to hand down rulings based on their own caste prejudices? On a petition filed by a BJP leader, how much money must have changed hands to secure an interim stay without even seeking the state’s opinion?”

பேட்டை ரௌடிகள் போல் கட்டப் பஞ்சாயத் நடக்கிறது! நீதிபதிகள் தங்களது சொந்த சாதி வெறுப்புகளை தீர்ப்பாக கொடுக்க, விடுமுறை நீதி மன்றத்தை பயன் படுத்த முடியுமா! ஒரு பாஜக தலைவர் தாக்கல் செய்த மனு மீது, மாநில அரசிடம் கருத்துக் கேட்காமல் இடைக்காலத் தடை வாங்குவதற்கு எவ்வளவு பணம் கை மாறியதோ? pic.twitter.com/6H6JINHNXu

— மல்லிகை மணாளன் (தமிழ் குடும்பம்) (@Jasmine01737661) May 22, 2025

Another Dravidian stock ranted, “There has been gross abuse of power. Is this a court BJP Karyakarta’s advisory board? Why should there even be a court for this? Well go to a bhajan center instead. The BJP is the only political party in the world that seems to have its own judges wing.”

https://x.com/Unmai_Kasakkum/status/1925255067403526626

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post DMK, Dravidianist Media And Periyarists Launch Casteist Attack Against Justices GR Swaminathan And V Lakshminarayan For Their Order Staying State University Vice Chancellors Appointments appeared first on The Commune.

On 17 January 2025, the Madras High Court expressed concern about the growing trend of filing criminal cases against individuals for expressing their opinions on public matters, calling it indicative of a fascist mindset. The court raised alarms over the increasing practice of arresting people for making certain statements on social and mainstream media.

Judicial Lashing Of the Case’s Foundation

Justice Swaminathan meticulously dismantled the legal basis of the charges. The petitioner was accused under Sections 221, 222, and 353(1)(b) and (2) of the BNS Act, 2023. The court highlighted the glaring inconsistencies and overreach in these charges:

1. Misuse of Section 221:
The judge stated unequivocally that Section 221, which pertains to obstructing a public servant, was misapplied. The petitioner’s YouTube comments could not be construed as “deliberate stoppage” of the investigation. The judge quipped that the investigating officer appeared to have “his own dictionary,” twisting the meaning of obstruction to suit the narrative.

2. Misapplication of Section 222:
Section 222 involves a person’s legal obligation to assist a public servant. Justice Swaminathan ruled that since the petitioner believed the case to be false, he was under no obligation to assist the police. Therefore, invoking this section was baseless.

3. Perversity of Section 353:
The court labeled the application of Section 353 as “nothing short of perversity.” It rejected the claim that the petitioner’s video caused public mischief or fear, asserting that criticism of a police investigation falls within the ambit of free speech.

Slamming The Police And Government Actions

Justice Swaminathan’s observations extended beyond the legal technicalities, targeting the systemic misuse of power:

1. Erosion of Rule of Law:
The judge condemned the state for resorting to successive cases and preventive detention to silence the petitioner, terming it an act of “hounding.” He pointed to the state’s “scant regard for rule of law” and described the petitioner’s arrest as “unfortunate” and motivated by malafides.

Justice Swaminathan’s condemnation of the police and state government reached its zenith when he labeled the petitioner’s arrest as motivated by “petty reasons” and “evident malafides.” The judge unequivocally “condemned the respondent” for acting with blatant disregard for the rule of law.

2. Judiciary’s Responsibility to Stem the Rot:
He urged magistrates and sessions courts to play an active role in curbing such misuse of the law, emphasizing that the simplest remedy is to deny remand in such frivolous cases.

3. Democratic Ideals Under Attack:

Justice G.R. Swaminathan remarked, “Democracy is all about opinions. In the market place of ideas, only those that have substance will stand. If a opinion is ill founded, it will fail in the long run. To foist a case against a person for making a certain assertion is indicative of a fascist approach. The target of a verbal attack can be any person. No one can be a holy cow. Prosecution is one thing. Arrest is entirely another.”

The judge also recalled the Supreme Court’s repeated warnings to the police against making unnecessary arrests. He noted, “It seems these warnings have not been heeded. Arrests should only happen when violence is incited; otherwise, there’s no justification for police intervention.”

While acknowledging that police may sometimes act in bad faith, the judge emphasized the role of judicial magistrates and sessions courts in curbing such practices. He suggested that judicial officers could refuse to grant remand after a suspect’s arrest. If a suspect’s only offense was expressing an opinion or making comments, the trial courts should adopt a lenient stance when considering bail applications.

Justice Swaminathan expressed profound disbelief at the sequence of events that led to the petitioner’s judicial custody and subsequent denial of bail by the lower court. He remarked: “I fail to understand as to how he was remanded to judicial custody in the first place. Even more surprising is the denial of bail by the Court below.”

The judge observed an alarming trend of criminal cases being registered against individuals merely for expressing opinions. While the police cannot be preemptively restrained from acting with malice, the judiciary holds a crucial responsibility to intervene. He emphasized that judicial magistrates and sessions courts must refuse unwarranted remand and grant bail when allegations are trivial and baseless.

The judge made these comments in response to the remand of YouTuber A. Shankar, also known as “Savukku” Shankar, who had been arrested by the Central Crime Branch police in Chennai for allegedly spreading misinformation about a land fraud case. Justice Swaminathan expressed surprise over the remand, stating, “I don’t understand why he was remanded in the first place. Even more puzzling is the denial of bail. The petitioner is not asking for the FIR to be quashed, only for bail.”

Justice Swaminathan further criticized the state’s actions against Shankar, noting that he had been detained twice under the Goondas Act. When the Supreme Court intervened, the state circumvented its orders by filing additional cases against him. The judge condemned this behavior, calling it a violation of the rule of law and demonstrating the malice of the police involved.

After ordering Shankar’s release on a bond of ₹10,000, Justice Swaminathan stated, “I find the criminal case against the petitioner to be entirely unjustified.” The judge also questioned how Shankar’s interview on his YouTube channel could have obstructed the police investigation, sarcastically remarking that the investigating officer must have a unique definition of “obstruction” tailored to the convenience of the police.

A Stark Warning to the State

This judgment is a glaring reminder of the judiciary’s role as a bulwark against authoritarian overreach. Justice Swaminathan’s words resonate beyond the legal corridors, emphasizing that freedom of speech is sacrosanct and that no government should stifle dissent under the guise of maintaining law and order.

This case not only exposed the DMK government’s alleged vendetta-driven governance but also reaffirmed the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional values.

Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Fascist Approach”: How Madras High Court Whipped And Gave Belt Treatment To DMK Govt In ‘Savukku’ Shankar Bail Case appeared first on The Commune.

Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 25 October 2024, ruled that a Muslim woman has the right to seek damages from her bigamous husband, as his actions can cause mental harm and qualify as “domestic violence” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005.

Hearing a petition, Justice G.R. Swaminathan stated that if a Muslim woman contests the legitimacy of a triple talaq (divorce) issued by her husband, he must seek a judicial ruling, demonstrating to the court that he followed the proper legal procedures for the talaq.

Additionally, the judge emphasized that Shariat councils, which are community-based groups, do not possess the authority to adjudicate divorce cases. “Only state-established courts have the power to make legal judgments,” he noted, underscoring that Shariat councils operate as private entities and not as judicial bodies.

This decision arose from a domestic dispute involving a doctor couple who married in 2010 under Islamic customs and had a son together. In 2018, the wife, who works in the government, filed a complaint under the 2005 Act.

In 2021, a Judicial Magistrate granted her request for compensation, ordering her Muslim husband to pay ₹5 lakh for the domestic violence she suffered. This ruling was upheld by a sessions court in 2022, leading the husband to challenge it in the High Court in 2023.

The husband claimed he had issued three talaq notices to his wife in 2017 before marrying another woman. However, the wife argued that she had not received the third notice, asserting that their marriage was still valid.

In his ruling, Justice Swaminathan pointed out that the definition of “domestic violence” in Section 3 of the 2005 Act encompasses any actions by the husband that harm or distress the wife, whether physically or mentally. He stated that bigamy would indeed cause mental suffering.

The judge further explained that while a Muslim man is permitted to have up to four wives, this right does not negate the wife’s entitlement to seek maintenance or refuse to live in the matrimonial home.

The court concluded that the wife could claim compensation for the husband’s bigamy, noting that he had not provided evidence to show that the third talaq notice was properly served.

Although the husband presented a “divorce certificate” from the Shariat council, Justice Swaminathan remarked that it was troubling, as it placed blame on the wife for not cooperating.

He emphasized that only state-authorized courts can issue valid judgments, criticizing the reliance on a Shariat council’s certificate. The judge expressed skepticism over how the husband’s father could serve as a witness for the talaq, likening it to a biased testimony, and quoted a Tamil saying to illustrate his point.

(With inputs from The Hindu)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Madurai Bench Of Madras HC Affirms Muslim Woman’s Right To Seek Damages For Bigamy, Defines Domestic Violence appeared first on The Commune.

In a recent statement dated September 24, 2024, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court shed light on the longstanding tradition of interactions between Indian Chief Justices and political leaders, emphasizing that such meetings are not out of the ordinary. He referenced the autobiographies of two eminent Chief Justices, M.C. Chagla and P.B. Gajendragadkar, to illustrate the nature of these encounters.

Justice Swaminathan highlighted that M.C. Chagla, who served as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court post-independence, regularly met with then-Chief Minister Morarji Desai to discuss administrative matters. These informal meetings, often held over lunch at Chagla’s residence, enabled swift resolutions to issues related to the judiciary and the government. Chagla humorously noted that Desai became more agreeable to his proposals after a good meal. Despite their camaraderie, the two never played bridge together due to their differing views on playing for stakes.

Justice Swaminathan also recounted an episode from Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar’s tenure as Chief Justice of India, during which he shared a close relationship with Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. Shastri sought Gajendragadkar’s help in evaluating allegations against his cabinet colleague T.T. Krishnamachari (TTK). Despite declining to lead the inquiry due to his personal friendship with TTK, Gajendragadkar recommended another judge for the task. However, Shastri used Gajendragadkar’s name to pressure TTK into resigning, leading to a strained relationship between the two friends. Gajendragadkar later expressed deep regret over the incident.

Justice Swaminathan cited these historical examples to underscore that meetings between the Chief Justice and the Prime Minister, even in private settings, are neither unusual nor improper. He suggested that such interactions have long been a part of India’s judicial and political landscape, helping to resolve administrative matters efficiently.

Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Meetings Between Executive And Judiciary: Justice GR Swaminathan Says It Is Nothing Out Of The Ordinary appeared first on The Commune.