Opinion Dear Editor, I Disagree: Holding judges accountable strengthens democracy
The impeachment initiated by the INDIA bloc is not about one order alone, but about the conduct of Justice G R Swaminathan over the past two years.
Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madras High Court. (File) A recent Indian Express editorial (‘DMK move to impeach HC judge is disquieting’, December 13) suggests that the DMK’s move to impeach Madras High Court Justice G R Swaminathan amounts to the party shooting itself in the foot. I disagree. The move, far from undermining judicial independence, strongly asserts the role of parliamentary oversight of the judiciary. Checks and balances are vital in any democracy. Impeachment is a constitutional safeguard against judicial misconduct. While it is the judiciary’s job to keep the executive and legislature in check, it is also the legislature’s job to keep the judiciary and executive in check. This delicate balance ensures no one has unbridled power.
Under Articles 124(4) and 217 of the Constitution, any Justice found to have had proven misbehaviour or exhibited a lack of capacity can be impeached. While the editorial suggests that the Tamil Nadu government should simply appeal the order, it overlooks the broader issue: The impeachment initiated by the INDIA bloc is not about one order alone, but about the conduct of this Justice over the past two years. The motion signed by 120 MPs has stated that he has consistently decided cases based on a particular political ideology, violated secular principles and shown undue favouritism to lawyers from certain sections of society.
In cases involving the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department, Justice Swaminathan made observations undermining its framework. During proceedings on non-Brahmin priests’ appointments, he openly identified as a Smartha Brahmin and questioned non-Brahmins’ fitness for priesthood. He has regularly shared the stage with leaders of one political ideology. In 2024, on stage with BJP leader H Raja, he came down heavily on the political ideology of the DMK and ridiculed former leaders of the party. In 2023, he stated that the Constitution’s survival depends on maintaining India’s “demographic profile” and people adhering to “Bharatiya dharma”. Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal remarked that such a mindset endangers the Constitution.
Another powerful omission in the editorial is how four months before the Thirupparankundram row, MPs of the INDIA bloc wrote separately to President Droupadi Murmu and then Chief Justice of India B R Gavai about the conduct of Justice Swaminathan, accusing him of favouring advocates from the Brahmin community and those associated with “right-wing ideologies”.
The judiciary cannot be above scrutiny. A judge cannot have an ideological bias or act in a partisan manner. Such an ideological position is not unique to Justice Swaminathan. In December last year, Allahabad High Court Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, while speaking at a Vishva Hindu Parishad meeting, stated that the law should be what the majority of people in the country desire. In such situations, it is the job of the legislature to keep a check on the judiciary. Parliamentarians are the voice of the people. When any institution goes against the Constitution of the country, it is the job of representatives to voice the people’s opinion on their behalf. Neither the Chief Justice nor the Prime Minister, in a democracy, is above the people of the country. The DMK’s action is, therefore, a step towards strengthening, not weakening, the constitutional framework.
The writer is spokesman, DMK and deputy secretary of the DMK IT wing
Share
