PIL Filed In Supreme Court Seeking Action Against Defamatory Remarks Targeting Madras High Court Judge Justice G.R. Swaminathan
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Supreme Court of India seeking directions for taking legal action against persons allegedly involved in spreading defamatory, caste-based and religion-based remarks against Justice G.R. Swaminathan, a sitting judge of the Madras High Court. The petition raises serious concerns about attempts to publicly vilify judges for their judicial decisions and warns that such actions pose a direct threat to judicial independence and the rule of law.
The controversy traces back to an order passed by Justice G.R. Swaminathan in connection with the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple at Thiruparankundram in Madurai. The judge had directed that the traditional Karthigai Deepam be lit on a Deepa Thoon (stone pillar) located near a dargah, noting that the practice had historical and religious significance. Following the order, law and order concerns were cited by the authorities, and prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were imposed in the area.
In subsequent contempt proceedings, Justice Swaminathan allowed devotees to light the lamp themselves under CISF protection, quashed the prohibitory orders, and directed senior officials of the Tamil Nadu Government to appear before the High Court. According to the PIL, these judicial orders triggered widespread protests, demonstrations and social media campaigns targeting the judge personally rather than challenging the orders through legal remedies.
The petitioner, Advocate G.S. Mani, has alleged that several individuals and groups made derogatory and defamatory statements against Justice Swaminathan, some of which allegedly invoked his caste and religion. It is claimed that protests were held demanding the judge’s resignation and attributing improper motives to his judicial conduct. The PIL further alleges that despite the seriousness of the allegations, the State Government and police authorities failed to take timely and effective action against those involved in such acts.
The petition argues that while criticism of judgments is permissible in a constitutional democracy, personal attacks on judges, particularly those based on caste or religion, amount to an attempt to intimidate the judiciary and interfere with the administration of justice. It emphasizes that the only lawful remedies available against a judicial order are appeal, review or other procedures recognized by law, and not public protests, social media abuse or political pressure.
The PIL seeks directions from the Supreme Court to compel the State authorities to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against those responsible for spreading defamatory and inflammatory content. It also urges the Court to reaffirm the principle that judges must be protected from targeted harassment and public vilification arising out of their judicial functions.
The issue has also taken on political overtones, with reports indicating that opposition Members of Parliament have moved an impeachment motion against Justice G.R. Swaminathan. Legal commentators, however, have pointed out that impeachment is a constitutional process governed by strict requirements and cannot be invoked merely because a judicial decision is unpopular or controversial.
The matter has sparked a wider debate on the balance between freedom of speech and the need to preserve the dignity and independence of the judiciary. Legal experts note that if unchecked, campaigns targeting individual judges for their rulings could undermine public confidence in courts and weaken the foundations of constitutional governance. The Supreme Court’s response to the PIL is therefore expected to have significant implications for judicial independence and accountability in India.