Amid the continuing legal and political controversy surrounding the Thiruparankundram Deepam dispute, Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court has, for the first time, publicly alluded to the impeachment notice moved against him by Members of Parliament belonging to the I.N.D.I.A. bloc. The remarks were made during a public function in Chennai, marking a rare instance of a sitting constitutional court judge addressing a pending parliamentary motion, albeit in measured and indirect terms.
Justice Swaminathan, who presently serves at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, indicated that he does not anticipate premature cessation of his judicial tenure and expects to continue in office for the remainder of his term. He expressed an aspiration to discharge his judicial functions with renewed commitment, guided by ethical and civilisational values that, according to him, underpin the idea of Sanatana Dharma.
The remarks were made during an event organised by the Dhara Foundation, where the judge ceremonially lit a Deepam atop a Deepathoon. The act assumed symbolic significance in light of Justice Swaminathan’s earlier judicial intervention in the Thiruparankundram hill dispute. In a judgment delivered on December 1, 2025, the judge had directed that the Karthigai Deepam be lit at the Deepathoon located atop the Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple hill in Madurai, holding that the site fell within temple land and outside the notified limits of the Sikkandar Badusha Dargah.
The order, however, was not implemented by the temple administration, which proceeded to light the ceremonial lamp at the Uchipillaiyar Temple instead. Viewing this as a wilful disobedience of a binding judicial directive, Justice Swaminathan initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the State authorities, invoking the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The episode significantly intensified the already fraught discourse surrounding religious practices, heritage regulation, and judicial oversight.
Subsequently, on December 9, 2025, over 100 Members of Parliament submitted a notice under Articles 124(4) and 217 read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, seeking Justice Swaminathan’s removal on grounds of alleged misconduct arising from his handling of the temple-related litigation. The move drew sharp political reactions, with several parties characterising the notice as an attempt to exert pressure on the judiciary for adjudicating matters involving faith and religious observance.
The controversy also resonated at the national political level, with the Prime Minister, during a public address in January, making an oblique reference to the impeachment attempt and cautioning against what was described as encroachment upon judicial independence in matters intersecting with electoral considerations.
Justice Swaminathan’s judicial career has often attracted public attention. Appointed as Assistant Solicitor General at the Madurai Bench in 2014, he was elevated as an additional judge of the Madras High Court in 2017 and later confirmed as a permanent judge. Known for his forthright opinions and distinctive judicial writing style, he has authored several notable judgments engaging constitutional morality, personal liberty, and social justice.
Among his widely cited decisions is the prohibition on non-consensual and medically unnecessary interventions on intersex infants and children in Tamil Nadu, which drew praise from civil liberties groups and medical ethicists alike. At the same time, his exercise of contempt jurisdiction—most notably in proceedings involving activist and commentator ‘Savukku’ Shankar—has also invited criticism and debate within legal circles on the balance between free expression and institutional authority.
The impeachment notice against Justice Swaminathan has brought renewed focus on the high constitutional threshold required for the removal of a High Court judge, a process that demands proof of proved misbehaviour or incapacity following a statutory inquiry. As matters stand, the episode underscores the complex intersection of judicial independence, religious adjudication, and parliamentary oversight—issues that continue to animate the broader debate triggered by the Thiruparankundram Deepam dispute.
The post Thiruparankundram Deepam controversy: Justice GR Swaminathan breaks silence over impeachment notice appeared first on India Legal.