Controversy Over Judge's Religious Pledge in Judiciary

In a provocative declaration that has sent ripples through India's legal fraternity, Madras High Court Justice GR Swaminathan stated that Sanatana Dharma would guide his remaining judicial service, emphasizing personal values over mere professional acumen. Speaking at a function organized by the Dhara Foundation in Chennai, the judge reflected on his approximately four-and-a-half-year tenure left, asserting the need for excellence rooted in spiritual principles. This remark, made alongside former Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami while distributing awards for cultural and spiritual contributions, has ignited a firestorm of criticism. Detractors, including Dalit activists, political figures, and legal scholars, contend that such an invocation undermines the constitutional oath judges swear to uphold—prioritizing the secular fabric of the Republic over religious doctrines. As debates rage on judicial ethics and secularism, this incident coincides with other high court rulings addressing the interplay of religion, heritage, and state powers, underscoring persistent tensions in India's pluralistic democracy.

The statement not only highlights individual judicial philosophy but also revives broader concerns about bias in the higher judiciary, particularly in a nation where caste, religion, and social justice form the bedrock of countless litigations. For legal professionals navigating sensitive constitutional matters, this development demands scrutiny of how personal beliefs intersect with public duty, potentially influencing future appointments, in-house accountability mechanisms, and public trust in the courts.

The Controversial Statement

Justice Swaminathan's words were delivered on a platform ostensibly celebrating cultural heritage, but they quickly transcended the event's ceremonial tone. "I hopefully have four and a half years of service. In these four and a half years, I have to show excellence. I have to keep Sanatana Dharma in my heart," the judge remarked, as reported by Bar and Bench. He further elaborated that "professional knowledge alone does not define a person’s role or character in public life," suggesting that ethical grounding in traditional values is essential for judicial integrity.

The Dhara Foundation event, held in Chennai, brought together figures recognizing contributions to Indian spiritual and cultural domains. Justice Swaminathan, joined by N. Gopalaswami, honored recipients, framing the occasion as a reinforcement of personal responsibility. Yet, in a judicial context, such emphasis on Sanatana Dharma—a term encompassing Hinduism's eternal philosophical and ethical tenets—raises eyebrows. Historically, as noted by anti-caste movements, Sanatana Dharma has been critiqued for perpetuating Brahminical dominance, patriarchal structures, and discrimination against marginalized communities, including Dalits and other backward classes. In today's polarized discourse, it is often invoked to defend caste hierarchies or Hindu majoritarian politics, making its endorsement by a sitting judge particularly fraught.

This is not an isolated utterance. Justice Swaminathan has been repeatedly in the spotlight for observations on caste, religion, social justice, and Dravidian politics—hallmarks of Tamil Nadu's socio-political landscape. His comments from the bench and public forums have previously drawn accusations of favoring upper-caste perspectives, conflicting with the Constitution's egalitarian ethos.

Justice Swaminathan's Judicial Track Record

To contextualize the latest controversy, one must revisit Justice Swaminathan's tenure. Elevated to the Madras High Court in 2013, he has authored notable judgments on labor rights, environmental law, and criminal justice. However, his extrajudicial remarks have often courted controversy. For instance, he has been criticized for statements perceived as dismissive of Dravidian anti-caste ideologies, aligning instead with narratives that romanticize traditional Hindu frameworks.

Last year, on August 11, 2025, Members of Parliament from the INDIA bloc penned letters to President Droupadi Murmu and then-Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, flagging concerns over the judge's conduct. The missives alleged preferential treatment to advocates from the Brahmin community and those linked to Hindu right-wing ideologies, urging an inquiry into potential biases. These complaints echo long-standing Dalit and anti-caste critiques that invoking Sanatana Dharma legitimizes exclusionary practices, clashing with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's vision of a casteless society enshrined in the Constitution.

Such history amplifies the current backlash, positioning Justice Swaminathan's pledge not as a personal musing but as part of a pattern that could erode the judiciary's neutrality. Legal ethicists draw parallels to past scandals, like the 2017 impeachment proceedings against Justice C.S. Karnan, where administrative misconduct and inflammatory statements led to his removal, highlighting the collegium system's internal checks under Article 124(4).

Backlash and Political Reactions

The response to Justice Swaminathan's statement has been swift and multifaceted. DMK spokesperson Saravanan Annadurai lambasted it as a departure from republican ideals: “When India became a republic on the 26th August 1950, the only guiding light is our Constitution for Administration of Justice. Will a judge be allowed to continue if he says Quran or Bible should guide him over his Judicial Service.”

Lawyer Ashish Goel echoed this sentiment on social media, posting: “Collegium gems like him should resign from judicial office and take lifelong guidance and inspiration from Sanatan Dharma for all we care. This statement flies in the face of constitutional oath, but this isn’t his first time and won’t be the last! Another Abhijeet Gangopadhyay.” The reference to Gangopadhyay alludes to another controversial judge whose political leanings drew scrutiny.

Dalit activist D. Selva Kumar took to X (formerly Twitter), stating: “Which Dr. B R Ambedkar opposed, this man and his coterie wants to embrace. The reason why they should be opposed.” Civil society organizations and anti-caste groups have long argued that such invocations normalize discrimination, branding critics as "anti-Hindu" and blurring the line between religion and state power—a violation of the secular principles affirmed in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994).

Politically, the remarks fuel Tamil Nadu's regional tensions, where Dravidian parties like DMK champion rationalism against perceived Sanskritization. For the legal community, this underscores the need for robust guidelines under the Restatement of Values of Judicial Office (2009), which mandates judges to avoid conduct that might question their impartiality.

Legal Ramifications for Judicial Conduct

At its core, the controversy probes the judiciary's constitutional firewall against religious influence. Article 219 mandates that judges swear to "uphold the Constitution and the laws without fear or favor," implicitly rejecting any supralegal guidance like religious texts. Invoking Sanatana Dharma, critics argue, could subconsciously bias decisions in cases involving religious freedoms (Articles 25-28), interfaith disputes, or affirmative action under Articles 15-16.

From a legal standpoint, while personal faith is protected under Article 25, public office demands restraint. The Supreme Court's observations in Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002) affirm that the state, including judiciary, must remain neutral. If perceived as a breach, remedies include complaints to the Chief Justice for transfer or, in extreme cases, impeachment—a high bar met only thrice in history.

Moreover, in a diverse federation, such statements risk alienating litigants from minority communities, contravening the equality mandate of Article 14. Legal analysts suggest this could invite public interest litigations (PILs) under Article 32, challenging the judge's continuance, much like the 2023 PILs against electoral bonds for transparency lapses.

Related Judicial Developments: Heritage and Policing

This incident unfolds amid parallel judicial interventions balancing tradition with modernity. In the Thiruparankundram lamp lighting dispute, a Madras High Court Division Bench on January 6, 2026, upheld the ancient Karthigai Deepam ritual at a temple site but imposed safeguards. Building on a December 1, 2025, single-judge order that affirmed the location as temple land outside the Sikkandar Badusha Dargah's demarcated area, the bench mandated consultation with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and police. The ASI could impose conditions to protect the hill—a declared protected monument—while regulating devotee numbers.

An appeal now before the Supreme Court challenges these, particularly the ASI clearance requirement, arguing it infringes on religious rights under Article 25. This case exemplifies the judiciary's role in reconciling faith with the Ancient Monuments Act, 1958, potentially setting precedents for sites like Ayodhya or Kashi where heritage and devotion collide.

Complementing this, the Delhi High Court, in a ruling by Justice Purushaindar Kumar Kaurav, de-froze Malabar Gold's bank accounts, ruling that police cannot invoke Section 106 of the BNSS for freezing without magistrate approval under Section 107. "Freezing of bank accounts is a measure directed at securing alleged proceeds of crime. Such a step cannot be taken under Section 106... which empowers police to seize property for evidentiary purposes," the court held. It stressed that blanket freezes on non-suspects are "manifestly arbitrary," violating Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 by crippling livelihoods.

This decision, rooted in the BNSS's transition from the CrPC, reinforces procedural due process, echoing Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). For practitioners in white-collar crime, it curtails investigative overreach, protecting commercial operations.

Implications for the Indian Legal Landscape

These developments collectively signal a judiciary grappling with its role in a polarized society. Justice Swaminathan's remarks could catalyze reforms, such as mandatory ethics training or stricter public speech guidelines for judges, bolstering public confidence amid declining trust surveys (e.g., 2023 India Justice Report).

In practice areas, constitutional lawyers may see surged PILs on judicial bias, while heritage litigators anticipate stricter scrutiny of ritual permissions. The BNSS ruling empowers corporate counsel to challenge police actions more aggressively, potentially reducing economic disruptions in investigations.

Broader impacts include reinforcing secularism's vitality—essential for India's 200 million-plus minorities—and curbing arbitrary state power, aligning with the Constitution's transformative vision.

Conclusion

Justice GR Swaminathan's pledge to let Sanatana Dharma guide his bench underscores the delicate equilibrium between personal conviction and institutional neutrality. As backlash mounts and related rulings clarify boundaries in heritage and policing, the episode serves as a clarion call for the judiciary to reaffirm its constitutional moorings. In a nation forged on Ambedkar's anvil of equality, allowing religious dogma to eclipse the Preamble's socialist, secular, democratic ethos risks fracturing the very justice it dispenses. Legal professionals must advocate for accountability, ensuring the courts remain beacons of impartiality amid cultural crosscurrents. Only then can the remaining years of service—Swaminathan's or any judge's—truly exemplify excellence.