‘Brazen attempt to browbeat’: 56 ex-judges slam opposition move to impeach Justice Swaminathan

Fifty-six former judges, including those who served in the Supreme Court, have issued a statement criticising the move to impeach the Madras High Court’s Justice GR Swaminathan and expressed “serious exception” to the impeachment motion while calling it a “brazen attempt to browbeat judges”. The former judges came out in support of Justice GR Swaminathan, who ruled recently on the Thirupparankundram Subramaniaswamy temple case. The 56 judges, including retired Supreme Court judges and former Chief Justices of several High Courts, called the impeachment motion a “brazen attempt to browbeat judges who do not fall in line with ideological and political expectations of a particular section of society”. The judges warned, “If this is allowed to continue, it will cut at the very roots of our democracy and the independence of the judiciary.”

“Even if the reasons mentioned by the signatory Member(s) of Parliament are taken at face value, they are wholly inadequate to justify resorting to such a rare, exceptional and serious constitutional measure as impeachment.”

Also Read: ‘Remove a single name from voter list, face dharna’: Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee warns on SIR

The judges also referenced the Emergency imposed by former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1975.

“It may be recalled that even during the dark period of the Emergency, the then-government adopted various mechanisms, including supersessions to penalise judges who refused to ‘toe the line’,” the judges said, pointing to three notable judgements, including the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case that established the ‘basic structure doctrine’ limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution of India.

These are “sobering reminders of how political overreach can damage judicial independence”.

‘Approach is anti-democratic and anti-constitutional’

The 56 former judges also criticised attempts to “defame” senior members when passing decisions not favourable to “certain political interests”, referencing three ex-Chief Justices of India—Deepak Mishra, Ranjan Gogoi, SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, and the current CJI, Surya Kant.

“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. To wield the threat of removal as a means of compelling judges to conform to political expectations is to turn a constitutional safeguard into an instrument of intimidation. Such an approach is anti-democratic (and) anti-constitutional...”

Also Read: ‘One H-1B worker equals 10 illegal aliens, send Indian techies back’, says US pollster, slams Trump admin

100 INDIA bloc MPs filed impeachment motion

Earlier this week over 100 INDIA bloc MPs, including Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, presented the motion to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla.

The move was strongly criticised by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who accused the opposition of ‘appeasement’ politics. “This has never happened (since) independence that a judge is facing impeachment for a judgment. They brought this to appease their vote bank,” Shah said.

The Madurai temple lamp row, and the high court verdict

The Thirupparankundram Subramaniaswamy temple case revolves around the lighting of a festival lamp on one of two ancient pillars, called ‘deepathon’, on a hill in Tamil Nadu’s Madurai. The hill is home to both a sixth-century temple and a 14th-century dargah.

On December 1, Justice Swaminathan overruled protests by the state government and temple officials, and ordered the lamp to be lit on the pillar built halfway up the hill instead of the one at the foot of it, which has been the tradition for over a 100 years.

Justice Swaminathan reasoned that the upper pillar is also temple property and must, therefore, be included in the ritual. The court emphasised the necessity of assertion of possession.

Also Read: Court denies anticipatory bail to Luthra brothers ahead of deportation from Thailand in Goa club fire case

However, the DMK said that such an order could inflame communal tensions, particularly with an Assembly election less than six months away.

The temple did not comply with the court’s order and on December 3, the day of the festival, the lamp was lit at the traditional spot on the lower pillar.

An irked judge, citing non-compliance, then ordered the lamp be lit on the upper pillar also, leading to unruly scenes as hundreds tried to march up the hill to light the lamp—backed by armed central security forces—prompting district officials to issue orders banning large gatherings.

Also Read: Tariff war widens: After US, Mexico announces up to 50% tariffs on imports from India, other Asian countries

Tamil Nadu govt moves Supreme Court

On December 4, appeals by the Tamil Nadu government were heard by a two-judge bench of the Madras High Court. The court decided against the Tamil Nadu government. Subsequently, on December 5, the state moved the Supreme Court, which has not yet fixed a date for the hearing.

The developments are being seen as a political setback for the ruling DMK, particularly ahead of the Assembly election next year, as it is already facing accusations of having an ‘anti-Hindu’ stance to appease Muslim voters.

Chief Minister MK Stalin targeted the BJP without naming it and said the lighting of the lamp had been conducted in line with a century-long tradition. “... some parties have a riot mindset...,” he remarked.