Judge Accused of Bias Initiates Contempt Proceedings Against Complainant Lawyer, Sparking Debate

MADURAI – A high-stakes confrontation is unfolding at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, raising profound questions about judicial accountability, the scope of contempt powers, and the procedural sanctity of handling complaints against judges. In an exceptional move, Justice G R Swaminathan has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate S Vanchinathan, the very lawyer who had previously filed a complaint with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) accusing the judge of caste bias and ideological partisanship.

The controversy, which has captivated and divided the legal fraternity in Tamil Nadu and beyond, pits the judiciary's power to protect its own dignity against the established mechanisms for ensuring its integrity. The situation escalated dramatically when a group of eight retired High Court judges issued a rare public statement urging Justice Swaminathan to recuse himself from the matter, arguing that his actions preempt the CJI's authority and violate fundamental principles of natural justice.

---

The Genesis of the Conflict: A Complaint to the CJI

The dispute traces back to June 2025, when S Vanchinathan, a practising lawyer and state coordinator of the People’s Rights Protection Centre, submitted a detailed 38-page representation to the Chief Justice of India. The petition did not call for punitive measures but rather an inquiry into the conduct of Justice Swaminathan.

Crucially, the complaint was filed under the Supreme Court’s "in-house procedure," a self-regulatory mechanism for judicial accountability. This procedure, firmly established in the landmark case of C Ravichandran Iyer Vs. Justice A M Bhattacharjee (1995) , dictates a specific protocol. It holds that complaints against a High Court judge must be examined confidentially by the Chief Justice of that High Court and the CJI. The source material explicitly notes the procedure "holds that such complaints must be examined first by the Chief Justice, not the subject judge." The purpose is to shield judges from frivolous allegations while providing a robust, internal framework to address credible claims of misconduct without public spectacle.

Vanchinathan’s petition alleged caste-based favouritism and ideological bias in Justice Swaminathan's judicial conduct, requesting an inquiry to ascertain the veracity of these serious claims.

A Routine Hearing Takes an Unprecedented Turn

The issue erupted into public view on July 24, 2025. Justice Swaminathan, presiding over a division bench with Justice K Rajasekar, was hearing a routine writ appeal. Upon noticing Vanchinathan's name on the record as having previously filed a vakalatnama (a document empowering a lawyer to act for a client) for one of the respondents—despite having since returned the case papers—the judge took the extraordinary step of summoning him to appear in person.

The summons was not related to the appeal being heard. Instead, Justice Swaminathan confronted Vanchinathan directly about the complaint filed against him with the CJI. According to courtroom accounts, the atmosphere grew tense as the judge questioned the advocate on whether he stood by the allegations.

When Vanchinathan requested that the query be put forth in a written order before he responded, a standard procedural request to ensure clarity and create a formal record, the judge reportedly made a critical remark and proceeded to dictate an order initiating contempt proceedings. The bench, comprising Justices Swaminathan and Rajasekar, issued an order stating that Vanchinathan’s conduct prima facie constitutes criminal contempt of court.

The order notes, “We, therefore, persisted with our query as to whether he continued to maintain that one of us (Justice Swaminathan) is being casteist while discharging his judicial duties. S Vanchinathan refused to answer this question. Instead, he requested that the query be posed in writing.”

The court directed the Registry to issue a formal questionnaire, asking Vanchinathan to appear on July 28 and respond to the question: “Whether you, S Vanchinathan, stand by your imputation of caste bias on the part of Justice G R Swaminathan in the discharge of his judicial duties?”

Retired Judges Intervene, Citing Procedural Impropriety

The bench's decision to initiate contempt proceedings drew swift and significant pushback from a respected quarter: the judiciary itself. Eight retired judges of the Madras High Court, including prominent names like Justice K Chandru and Justice D Hariparanthaman, issued a joint public appeal.

Their statement strongly advised Justice Swaminathan and Justice Rajasekar to step back from the contempt action, framing it as procedurally premature and a violation of established legal principles. “In the absence of any action taken by the Chief Justice of India on the petition, it is premature for the learned judges to initiate action,” their letter asserted.

The retired judges invoked the very same Ravichandran Iyer ruling that underpins the "in-house procedure." They reiterated that allegations of judicial impropriety must be examined within a controlled and impartial framework, not from the bench by the accused judge. Their statement underscored the core principle of nemo judex in causa sua —that no person should be a judge in their own cause.

“It is only when the in-house committee is of the opinion that there is a prima facie truth in the allegations made, he can take or order appropriate action in the matter,” the appeal stated, highlighting the established process which was also followed in the recent case of another High Court judge.

Legal and Ethical Implications

This case brings several critical legal issues to the forefront, with significant implications for the bar and the bench:

1. Undermining the "In-House Procedure": By initiating contempt action, the bench is seen by critics as circumventing and undermining the very mechanism designed for such situations. If a judge can pre-emptively act against a complainant, it could render the confidential "in-house procedure" ineffective and create a chilling effect on lawyers and litigants who wish to file legitimate grievances.

2. The Scope of Contempt Powers: The incident reignites the debate over the use of contempt powers. The statement of former CJI D Y Chandrachud from November 2023 is particularly relevant here: he clarified that contempt powers under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution exist “to safeguard the functioning of courts, not to shield judges from criticism.” The central question is whether a confidential complaint to the CJI, made under an approved procedure, can be construed as an act of criminal contempt intended to scandalize the court.

3. Conflict of Interest and Natural Justice: The most glaring issue is the apparent conflict of interest. A judge presiding over a matter where his own conduct is the central point of contention runs contrary to the foundational principles of natural justice. The intervention by the retired judges squarely addresses this, arguing that impartiality is compromised when the adjudicator is also the accused.

For the legal community, this episode is a stark reminder of the delicate power balance between the bar and the bench. While lawyers are duty-bound to maintain respect for the court, they are also considered officers of the court, vested with the responsibility to uphold the integrity of the justice system. The "in-house procedure" was created to provide a safe and structured channel for this responsibility. The current standoff threatens to close that channel, leaving lawyers in a precarious position when they believe they have witnessed judicial misconduct. The outcome of this case will undoubtedly set a powerful precedent for the future of judicial accountability in India.