The DMK is said to be exploring the option of moving a notice in the Lok Sabha for the removal of Madras High Court judge Justice G R Swaminathan, whose order regarding the lighting of a lamp at a contested site in Madurai has landed the party-led government in a legal and political tussle.
Sources said several Opposition MPs from the Lok Sabha have signed the petition, which reportedly says that the December 1 order by Justice Swaminathan amounted to “judicial indiscipline”, given that a Division Bench of the Madras High Court had in the same case ruled in 2017 that courts should not intervene in temple rituals or dictate the precise location for the lamp-lighting.
Sources in the DMK say a single-judge Bench should not have given an order virtually overturning a Division Bench directive. However, some in the Opposition are not convinced it is enough to seek the judge’s removal.
“The threshold for impeachment of a judge is very high. There should be grounds like proven judicial misconduct. Just because you didn’t like a verdict is no ground for seeking impeachment of a judge,” one Opposition MP said.
In his order on December 1, Justice Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench of the High Court directed the Hindu temple at the site, located atop a hill, to revive what he described as a “tradition” of lighting the Thiruparankundram Deepam, located near a historic dargah. Days later, he also issued a strong contempt order after officials failed to carry out the court’s directive, as the DMK government resisted it.
Story continues below this ad
Justice Swaminathan said the petitioner and 10 others should get a CISF escort – pointedly ruling out police – to climb the hill and light the lamp, calling the act “symbolic but necessary” to uphold the authority of the court.
With the BJP throwing its weight behind the court order, the DMK is on a sticky wicket, particularly given the approaching Assembly elections in the state.
The Madurai Collector and the Executive Officer of the Subramaniya Swamy temple in Thiruparankundram have appealed against Justice Swaminathan’s order, and on December 12, a Division Bench of the High Court will hear their petitions.
As per the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, a complaint against a judge is taken up if the resolution is signed by at least 100 members if it is moved in the Lok Sabha and 50 members if initiated in the Rajya Sabha. Once the motion is submitted, the presiding officer of the House takes a call on whether to accept or reject it.
The DMK has 22 members in the Lok Sabha and needs other parties to support it to ensure 100 signatures.
The limelight he finds himself in courtesy the row is not new for Justice Swaminathan, who has been criticised by his detractors for leading his courtroom to the front line of Tamil Nadu’s culture wars, which have become increasingly shrill as the BJP pushes into the state.
In speeches and writings, the judge has often expressed reverence for Hindu philosophy, classical Tamil tradition, and the idea of “continuity” with religious identity. His judgments in cases involving temple administration, religious rights, or traditional practices, often include references to ancient texts.
In his contempt directive in the present case, Justice Swaminathan warned the authorities of “harsh consequences” if they did not implement his directive to facilitate the lighting of the deepam.
Since then, an anecdote recounted by Justice Swaminathan in a speech has been doing the rounds, in which he talks about getting a person out of legal trouble following a road accident that had resulted in a death, because of their religious sympathies. A lawyer at the time, Justice Swaminathan says in the speech that the fact that police did not have credible witnesses helped him “save the Sastrigal (a man well versed in the Vedas)”, adding: “That day I realised that if we protect the Vedas, the Vedas will protect us.”
There have been other cases too where Justice Swaminathan has held that the State has “no authority to dilute Hindu ritual practice” under the cover of neutrality, public order, or administrative convenience.
Some of these orders were later overturned or “softened” by Division Benches on appeal.
For example, Justice Swaminathan’s May 2024 order granting a petition to allow “Angapradakshinam” – a ritual involving rolling over banana leaves on which devotees had eaten – which had been banned in 2015 by a Division Bench. In March 2025, a Division Bench set aside the 2024 order, thereby reinstating the ban on the ritual.
Lawyers called the tone of Justice Swaminathan’s contempt order in the deepam case, on December 4, as also reflective of his style. At one point, he reminded police that when the US federal marshals had refused to enforce court orders on desegregation of the races, President Dwight D Eisenhower had sent in the military. “Thiru. Loganathan, IPS (Madurai City Police commissioner) must take inspiration from such examples,” he said.
Expressing his discomfort with the language, a senior Madras High Court judge told The Indian Express: “The Constitution expects from its judges not passion, not cultural guardianship, but quiet courage. That courage is to hold power without historic anger.”
Another senior High Court judge, who is also a friend of Justice Swaminathan, said: “Faith is human… Maybe I am more religious than Swaminathan… But what is worrying is the movement of the judiciary towards becoming an engine of identity rather than a mediator of rights… The lamp burns because the flame exists, not because the mountain must be retaken.”
A senior lawyer of the High Court, who once worked with Justice Swaminathan, said his deepam row order reflected “how law, faith, sovereignty and identity intersect in India today”. “But constitutional democracy should operate through cohabitation, negotiation, and restraint.”
A colleague in the High Court also described Justice Swaminathan as “a symptom of his age”, where courts are being drawn into identity struggles. “But the Indian Constitution is a pluralist living organism. It breathes through diversity,” the judge said.
He also pointed to what had followed Justice Swaminathan’s contempt orders. “The Hindu groups mobilised at the site and, the same night, defied restrictions by police personnel and pelted stones at them.”