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.