Opposition INDIA Bloc Submits Impeachment Motion Against Madras HC Judge Over Controversial Temple Order
107 MPs accuse Justice GR Swaminathan of ideological bias and violating secular principles following Thirupparankundram Deepam ruling
NEW DELHI, December 9, 2025 — In an unprecedented political-judicial confrontation, 107 Members of Parliament from the opposition INDIA bloc submitted an impeachment motion against Madras High Court Justice GR Swaminathan on Tuesday, accusing him of deciding cases based on political ideology and compromising the secular fabric of the judiciary.
The motion, handed over to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla by DMK MPs alongside prominent INDIA bloc leaders including Priyanka Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav, seeks the removal of the Madurai bench judge under Article 217 read with Article 124 of the Constitution.
The impeachment notice claims that Justice Swaminathan’s recent orders have been disruptive to social harmony and detrimental to the integrity of the judiciary, raising serious questions about impartiality, transparency, and secular functioning.
The Thirupparankundram Controversy
The impeachment move stems from Justice Swaminathan’s contentious order permitting devotees to light the traditional Karthigai Deepam at a stone lamp pillar near a dargah atop the Thirupparankundram hills in Madurai district, a decision that sparked communal tensions and violent clashes.
The controversy began when Madurai resident Rama Ravikumar filed a petition seeking permission to light the festival lamp at the deepathoon, a stone pillar located near the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah, instead of the traditional site at the Uchipillaiyar Temple. Justice Swaminathan granted the petition on December 1, directing temple authorities to light the lamp at the hilltop location and ordering police to provide security.
When the order was not implemented, the judge on December 3 issued another directive allowing the petitioner and ten others to light the lamp themselves, with protection from the Central Industrial Security Force attached to the Madurai bench.
The hillock houses both the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy temple and the dargah, making the location religiously sensitive. The judge’s order stated that lighting the lamp would not violate the rights of the dargah or Muslims in any way.
Violent Fallout and Government Opposition
The judicial directive triggered immediate backlash. Hindu Munnani functionaries marched toward the temple and attempted to access the hill, leading to confrontations with police. When protesters tried to breach barricades and trek up the hill, clashes erupted, resulting in injuries to two police officers on duty.
Police subsequently restricted access to the hill citing law and order concerns, preventing the lamp from being lit at the court-mandated location. This non-compliance led to a contempt petition, which Justice Swaminathan is scheduled to hear on December 17.
The Tamil Nadu government, led by the DMK, challenged the single judge’s order before a division bench of the Madras High Court, which refused to overturn the directions. The state then approached the Supreme Court, which has admitted the appeal.
Allegations of Bias and Favouritism
The impeachment motion goes beyond the Thirupparankundram case, alleging a pattern of biased conduct by Justice Swaminathan. The MPs claim the judge has been deciding cases on the basis of particular political ideology and against the secular principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Specifically, the motion accuses Justice Swaminathan of showing undue favouritism toward senior advocate M Sricharan Ranganathan and lawyers from a particular community while deciding cases.
Among the signatories to the impeachment notice are senior opposition leaders including DMK’s TR Baalu, A Raja, Kanimozhi, and Dayanidhi Maran; Congress leaders Priyanka Gandhi and Gaurav Gogoi; Samajwadi Party’s Akhilesh Yadav and Dimple Yadav; and AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi.
Political Reactions and Legal Implications
The move has drawn sharp criticism from the ruling BJP, with party leader K Annamalai accusing the opposition of flaunting anti-Hindu credentials and engaging in minority appeasement politics.
Annamalai questioned the purpose of the impeachment motion when the Tamil Nadu government has already filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, calling it a desperate political drama that places vote-bank politics above the rule of law.
On Monday, a lawyers’ association held protests outside the Madras High Court complex demanding Justice Swaminathan’s impeachment over the Thirupparankundram judgment.
The Impeachment Process
Under constitutional provisions, impeaching a judge requires a removal motion to be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs. The INDIA bloc has crossed this threshold with 107 signatures.
If the motion is admitted by the Speaker, a three-member judicial committee will be formed to investigate the allegations. Should the committee find evidence of misconduct, Parliament will debate and vote on the impeachment. A two-thirds majority of members present and voting is required to approve the removal, after which the President can be advised to remove the judge.
However, no judge has ever been successfully impeached in India’s history, making this an extraordinarily rare and politically charged process.
Justice Swaminathan’s Controversial Record
This is not the first time Justice Swaminathan has faced criticism. He has previously drawn attention for initiating contempt proceedings against YouTuber Savukku Shankar and advocate Vanchinathan of the Madurai bench, leading to friction with the Tamil Nadu government and civil society groups.
Legal experts have cautioned against politicizing the judiciary, warning that the impeachment move could set a troubling precedent for judicial independence. They argue that while judges must be held accountable, the remedy for objectionable orders lies in the appellate process rather than parliamentary intervention.
What Lies Ahead
With the contempt case still pending before Justice Swaminathan and the state’s appeal admitted by the Supreme Court, the legal battle over the Thirupparankundram Deepam continues on multiple fronts.
The Speaker must now decide whether to admit the impeachment motion for further proceedings. Given the political stakes and the unprecedented nature of the move, the decision is expected to trigger intense debate about the boundaries between judicial independence and accountability.
As the controversy intensifies, it has raised fundamental questions about the judiciary’s role in managing religiously sensitive matters, the limits of judicial intervention in administrative decisions, and the appropriate mechanisms for addressing alleged judicial misconduct.
The coming days will determine whether this impeachment attempt remains a political statement or becomes a historic challenge to judicial independence in India.
HASHTAGS
Primary: #JusticeSwaminathan #MadrasHighCourt #ImpeachmentMotion #INDIABloc #ThirupparankundramRow
Secondary: #KarthigaiDeepam #JudicialIndependence #Madurai #TamilNadu #Parliament #LokSabha #JudicialAccountability
Topic-Specific: #ReligiousTensions #DMK #SupremeCourt #ContemptOfCourt #SecularIndia
Trending: #BreakingNews #IndiaNews #PoliticalNews #LegalNews #JudiciaryDebate
