In a dramatic courtroom proceeding in the Madras High Court, Justice GR Swaminathan confronted Advocate Vanchinathan over serious allegations the lawyer had made, accusing the judge of caste and communal bias. The judge accused Vanchinathan of engaging in a relentless and baseless campaign to tarnish the image of the judiciary. The exchange between the judge and the advocate was marked by tense exchanges.

The controversy stems from several social media posts and video interviews in which Vanchinathan allegedly levelled accusations against Justice Swaminathan, claiming that his judicial decisions were motivated by caste prejudice.

Responding to these public allegations, the Court had summoned Vanchinathan to clarify his position whether he stood by his remarks or intended to retract them.

Vanchinathan declined to respond to the judge’s questions orally, insisting instead that the Court pass a written order. This prompted Justice Swaminathan to exclaim, “You are a comedy piece.” He continued, “I don't know who called you all revolutionary. You are all comedy pieces,” highlighting his exasperation with what he viewed as a lack of seriousness and responsibility on the lawyer’s part.

Stated the Judge, “Mr. Vanchinathan, I 100 per cent respect your right to brutally criticise my judgments. But when you are alleging caste bias, things take a different turn,” making it clear that by attributing casteist motives to him, the advocate had crossed a red line.

During the hearing, the Court referred to one of Vanchinathan’s interviews in which he reportedly alleged that a senior lawyer was targeted because he belonged to the Dalit community, while another was treated leniently due to being Brahmin.

The judge expressed concern over the broad and unverified nature of such claims, emphasizing that “For four years, you have been slandering me. I have not taken any action against you. We are also conscious of the rules of procedure. We are not fools. We will place the case before the Chief Justice or an appropriate bench. The whole ecosystem has ganged up—we are aware. We will not be intimidated or cowed down. Judicial independence is supreme,” Justice Swaminathan declared, voicing his resolve.

In its written order, the Bench noted that Vanchinathan had appeared before the Court on July 25 and again on July 28. The Court recorded that the advocate’s response seemed to rest on a mistaken belief that the proceedings were linked to a complaint he had submitted to the Chief Justice of India and other senior judges of the Supreme Court, a notion the Bench firmly dismissed.

“We fail to understand on what basis such allegations have been made against this Court... We clarify once again that the proceedings against him have nothing to do with that complaint,” the order stated. It further explained that the Court’s intention was simply to adhere to the principles of natural justice by providing Vanchinathan an opportunity to explain or retract his remarks.

“You have assumed two things that have no basis. First, this has nothing to do with the complaint you sent to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. Second, we have not initiated any contempt action till Friday. We only want to clarify your stance—whether you continue to allege caste and communal bias,” the Bench reiterated.

Meanwhile, a group of retired Madras High Court judges Justice K Chandru, Justice D Hariparanthaman, Justice CT Selvam, Justice Akbar Ali, Justice P Kalaiyarasan, Justice S Vimala, and Justice SS Sundar issued a public statement emphasizing that complaints against sitting judges should be routed through the Chief Justice, not dealt with by the judge concerned. They appealed to Justice Swaminathan’s Bench to abstain from pursuing action against Vanchinathan.

The Bench took note of this development and remarked, "While this matter is pending, it is most unfortunate that some retired judges are rendering opinions." Justice Swaminathan expressed his particular disappointment with Justice SS Sundar for joining the statement.

It later emerged that Justice KK Sasidharan, whose name was initially included in the statement, had distanced himself from it.

Ultimately, the Bench decided to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for further orders.

As the proceedings came to a close, Justice Swaminathan made a pointed remark that, “I regretted calling you a coward. Now I do not regret at all.”