Early in December 2025, the Lok Sabha Speaker received a notice from more than 100 Members of Parliament (MPs) from the INDIA bloc and several opposition parties, including the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), requesting the impeachment (constitutional removal) of Justice G.R. Swaminathan, a Madras High Court judge.
The motion concerns accusations of misconduct and bias associated with Justice Swaminathan's contentious decisions, particularly an order pertaining to the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp atop a hill next to a temple and dargah in Thiruparankundram (Madurai). Opponents contend that the order represented discriminatory overreach and upset religious peace.
231.1) Why is this Controversy Significant?
Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court may be removed for demonstrated misconduct or incapacity under the Indian Constitution, however the standard is quite high:
1) Before a motion is accepted by the presiding officer, it must receive the support of at least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs or 100 Lok Sabha MPs.
2) A three-person inquiry committee looks into the allegations upon admission.
3) Both Houses of Parliament must approve the proposal with a special majority (two-thirds of present members and an absolute majority of the entire membership) if the committee finds evidence of misbehaviour.
4) Lastly, the judge's removal is legally ordered by the President.
In India's history, no High Court judge has ever been successfully impeached. In order to safeguard judicial independence and avoid political abuse, the procedure is purposefully challenging.
1) Before a motion is accepted by the presiding officer, it must receive the support of at least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs or 100 Lok Sabha MPs.
2) A three-person inquiry committee looks into the allegations upon admission.
3) Both Houses of Parliament must approve the proposal with a special majority (two-thirds of present members and an absolute majority of the entire membership) if the committee finds evidence of misbehaviour.
4) Lastly, the judge's removal is legally ordered by the President.
In India's history, no High Court judge has ever been successfully impeached. In order to safeguard judicial independence and avoid political abuse, the procedure is purposefully challenging.
231.2) Why MPs moved the motion?
Leaders of the DMK, Congress, Samajwadi Party, and other opposition MPs contend that Justice Swaminathan's ruling in the Thiruparankundram Deepam case was not only legally incorrect but also demonstrated prejudice and poor judgement that damaged religious peace and public order.
The motion's proponents believe that when judges deviate from the values of impartiality and fairness, they can be held accountable through the constitutional process of impeachment.
The motion's proponents believe that when judges deviate from the values of impartiality and fairness, they can be held accountable through the constitutional process of impeachment.
231.3) Backlash and Support
231.3.1) Strong Reaction from the Legal Community and Judiciary:
The impeachment notification sparked a significant protest from the courts as well as from political rivals:1) In a public statement denouncing the impeachment attempt, 56 former judges—including retired Supreme Court justices and previous Chief Justices—called it a "brazen attempt to browbeat judges who do not fall in line with ideological expectations" and a threat to judicial independence.
2) In a memorandum rejecting the impeachment motion, senior advocates and attorneys at the Madurai Bench contended that it is an abuse of the impeachment process and threatens the constitutional division of powers.
The Tamil Nadu legal community has defended Justice Swaminathan's ruling, arguing that it was founded on legal logic rather than personal prejudice.
231.3.2) Political Rebuttals to Accusations
The conflict has been extremely politicised:1) BJP leaders declared the action "unconstitutional" and accused the DMK and opposition parties of using impeachment as a political tool.
2) The impeachment movement's detractors contend that it creates a risky precedent in which judges could be politicised for rulings that are unpopular with influential groups.
3) The DMK was also accused by some BJP state leaders of selectively adhering to court orders in order to further their political agendas.
231.4) Context: The Deepam Row
The Karthigai Deepam lamp row itself involves delicate points where politics, tradition, and religion converge. Tensions between different religious groups in Tamil Nadu have been stoked for decades by the question of whether a specific community was permitted to light the lamp next to a temple and near a dargah. Critics viewed Justice Swaminathan's order as upsetting long-standing customs in the community, but proponents maintain that his ruling followed the law.
231.5) What Happens Next?
1) Although a notice of impeachment has been filed, it has not yet been accepted or discussed in Parliament. The Speaker's procedural examination will determine whether it is admissible.
2) The constitutional impeachment procedure, which entails committee investigation and possible parliamentary voting, will start if the candidate is admitted.
3) Moving forward with impeachment is still a difficult undertaking due to the high constitutional threshold and strong opposition from previous jurists and legal bodies.
2) The constitutional impeachment procedure, which entails committee investigation and possible parliamentary voting, will start if the candidate is admitted.
3) Moving forward with impeachment is still a difficult undertaking due to the high constitutional threshold and strong opposition from previous jurists and legal bodies.
231.6) Why This Matters?
This dispute touches on core tenets of Indian democracy and is not limited to a single judge:
1) Accountability vs judicial independence
2) Constitutional mechanisms become politicised
3) Separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature
4) Public trust in establishments
Future developments in India's constitutional system may depend on how Parliament, the judiciary, and the legal profession handle this matter.
1) Accountability vs judicial independence
2) Constitutional mechanisms become politicised
3) Separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature
4) Public trust in establishments
Future developments in India's constitutional system may depend on how Parliament, the judiciary, and the legal profession handle this matter.
Team Yuva Aaveg-
Adarsh Tiwari
🌟 Join Yuva Aaveg! 🌟
A vibrant community dedicated to empowering youth with the latest insights, discussions, and updates on topics that matter. Connect with like-minded individuals, share ideas, and stay inspired to make a difference.
📲 Join us on WhatsApp and Telegram for exclusive updates and engaging conversations!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please give your feedback and help us to give you best possible content!!