Senior Advocate Named In Justice Swaminathan Impeachment Notice Calls Allegations A 'Charade'

Last Updated:December 12, 2025, 16:44 IST

M Sricharan Ranganathan, named in the impeachment motion against Justice G R Swaminathan, rejected allegations of favouritism and said the move undermines judicial independence.

Justice GR Swaminathan (Image: hcmadras.tn.nic.in)

A political and legal row has erupted over an impeachment motion moved against Madras High Court judge Justice G R Swaminathan, with a senior advocate named in the allegations strongly rejecting the charges and warning that the move amounts to a frontal assault on judicial independence.

CNN-News18 has exclusively accessed a detailed statement by senior advocate M Sricharan Ranganathan, whose name figures prominently in the impeachment notice submitted to the Lok Sabha Speaker. The motion accuses Justice Swaminathan of allegedly favouring Ranganathan in a series of cases, a charge the advocate has categorically denied.

In his statement, Ranganathan describes the impeachment bid as “a charade" and a “frontal assault on an unyielding judge" of the Madras High Court, arguing that the allegations are built on distortion, selective reading of data, and misrepresentation of facts.

‘Snook Cocked’ At Attempt To Oust Judge

Reacting sharply to the move, Ranganathan said he was “snook cocked" by the attempt to impeach Justice Swaminathan, adding that he himself had been turned into a “soft target" caught in political crosshairs.

He said the impeachment motion twists data, repeatedly misnames him, and selectively presents routine professional appearances before the High Court as evidence of impropriety. According to him, the attempt is not about accountability but about punishing a judge who has refused to yield to political or ideological pressure.

The senior advocate also objected to what he described as the weaponisation of identity. He said references to a “particular community" were being used to insinuate bias, a move that threatens judicial independence by injecting communal insinuations into constitutional scrutiny.

Former Judges Issue Strong Statement Of Support

The controversy has triggered a strong response from the legal fraternity. 56 former judges, including those who served on the Supreme Court, have issued a statement expressing “serious exception" to the impeachment motion.

Calling it a “brazen attempt to browbeat judges who do not fall in line with ideological and political expectations of a particular section of society," the former judges warned that if such efforts are allowed to continue, they would “cut at the very roots of our democracy and the independence of the judiciary."

They underlined that even if the allegations were taken at face value, they were “wholly inadequate" to justify invoking impeachment, a rare, exceptional and grave constitutional mechanism.

Emergency-Era Parallels And Warning On Overreach

Drawing parallels with the Emergency imposed in 1975, the former judges recalled how governments had historically sought to penalise judges who refused to “toe the line," citing the supersession of judges after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment and the sidelining of Justice H R Khanna following his dissent in ADM Jabalpur.

They described these episodes as “sobering reminders of how political overreach can damage judicial independence."

The statement also referred to sustained campaigns against former Chief Justices of India — Dipak Misra, Ranjan Gogoi, S A Bobde and D Y Chandrachud — as well as attacks on incumbent CJI Justice Surya Kant whenever judicial outcomes displeased political constituencies.

“The very purpose of the impeachment mechanism is to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, not to convert it into a tool of arm-twisting, signalling and retaliation," the statement said.

107 MPs Move Impeachment Motion

Earlier this week, as many as 107 INDIA bloc MPs, led by the DMK, submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking the impeachment of Justice Swaminathan. Copies of the notice were also sent to President Droupadi Murmu and Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.

The delegation included Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, DMK leaders T R Baalu and Kanimozhi, NCP (SP) MP Supriya Sule, among others.

The move was sharply criticised by Home Minister Amit Shah, who accused the Opposition of “appeasement politics," saying it was unprecedented for a judge to face impeachment over a judicial ruling.

What The Impeachment Notice Alleges

The impeachment notice, submitted by INDIA bloc MPs, accused Justice Swaminathan of conduct that allegedly raises “serious questions regarding impartiality, transparency, and the secular functioning of the judiciary."

It alleged “undue favouritism" towards senior advocate M Sricharan Ranganathan and lawyers from a “particular community," and claimed the judge decided cases based on a “particular political ideology," in violation of constitutional secular principles.

These are the allegations Ranganathan has rejected in his statement, arguing that the motion selectively reads court data and deploys identity-based insinuations to attack both the judge and counsel.

Temple Lamp Case At Centre Of Dispute

Justice Swaminathan’s order relates to the Thirupparankundram Subramaniaswamy temple in Madurai, where a long-running dispute centres on the lighting of a festival lamp on one of two ancient pillars, known as deepathoon, on a hill that houses both a sixth-century Hindu temple and a 14th-century dargah.

On December 1, after a contentious hearing, Justice Swaminathan directed that the lamp be lit on the upper pillar — also temple property — instead of the lower pillar, where it had traditionally been lit for over a century. The judge emphasised the need to assert possession over temple property.

When the temple did not comply with the order, the court subsequently directed that the lamp be lit on the upper pillar as well. The developments triggered tense scenes as crowds attempted to climb the hill, prompting authorities to impose restrictions on gatherings.

The Tamil Nadu government argued that the order could inflame communal tensions, particularly with Assembly elections less than six months away, and noted that it departed from a 2017 Madras High Court division bench ruling.

Appeals by the state were rejected by a High Court division bench, after which the Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court. The apex court has admitted the state’s plea but has not yet fixed a date for hearing.

Political Undercurrents

Politically, the developments have been viewed as a setback for the ruling DMK ahead of the 2026 Assembly election, amid accusations — which the party denies — of adopting an “anti-Hindu" stance to appease Muslim voters.

Chief Minister M K Stalin has accused the BJP of politicising religious issues, particularly after the BJP renewed its alliance with the AIADMK. Defending the government’s position, Stalin said the lamp lighting followed a century-old tradition and accused some parties of having a “riot mindset."

News india Senior Advocate Named In Justice Swaminathan Impeachment Notice Calls Allegations A 'Charade'

Read More