Issue of advocate casting allegation against Justice Swaminathan goes to CJ

A Division Bench headed by Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday directed the High Court Registry to place before the Chief Justice the papers regarding advocate S. Vanchinathan accusing Justice Swaminathan of exhibiting caste bias.

A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar had said Mr. Vanchinathan had been giving interviews to YouTube Channels accusing the judge of caste bias. On July 24, when he appeared before the court, he declined to answer to the question if he stood by his imputation, and instead sought a written questionnaire. A pre-cognisance notice was issued to him and he was directed to appear on July 28.

The court said during the intervening weekend, a press conference was held and a statement was published on behalf of a few retired judges questioning the process adopted by the bench. “We have to record our dismay as to how such interference with the judicial process can be made. Several assumptions which have no factual basis have been made. We characterise their approach as most unfortunate,” the judges said.

Contending the proceedings had nothing to do with Mr. Vanchinathan’s earlier complaint to the Chief Justice of India against the judge, the court said it issued the notice only because of the “persistent campaign being conducted by Mr. Vanchinathan” in social media.

“We had not, till this moment, initiated any contempt action against Vanchinathan. That Vanchinathan has been slandering Justice Swaminathan is beyond dispute,” the court said. A video recording of one of the interviews of Vanchinathan was played in the court where such allegations were made. “This interview is only a sample. There are scores of such YouTube videos.”

The bench said it wanted to comply with the principles of natural justice before making a reference to the Chief Justice. “Our intention was to close the matter if Vanchinathan indicated change of heart. He does not have any such intention. But he had been cleverly advised. He, therefore, declined to take any stand before us. His written reply is completely silent on the query raised in the notice,” the judges said.

“We judges have taken oath to discharge our judicial duties not only without favour but also without fear. When a judge disposes of a matter, the lawyer before him neither wins nor loses. It is the case that is won or lost. Lawyers and Judges belong to one large family. They are members of the legal community. When a Judge sits on the dais, he discharges his judicial duties as per his conscience and by strictly adhering to the judicial oath. He cannot be seen as carrying on his caste or religious labels while on the bench,” they added.

“If someone continues to have such a perception, he obviously has jaundiced eyes. The legal system provides for remedies and recourse has to be taken to them by persons aggrieved by individual decisions. Without doing so, launching communal campaigns on social media would eventually weaken the system itself. Time has come to regulate the level of discourse in social media. In the name of freedom of speech and expression, one cannot condone acts of contempt,” the bench said.

The court felt the channels which rake in money by such slanderous campaigns would have to be taken head on. “Lawyers who make such statements are guilty of professional misconduct. There is something called Laxman rekha which if crossed must invite peril,” the court observed.

The judges said Mr. Vanchinathan had mobilised a group of lawyers and retired Judges to rush to his rescue. “They have also passed reckless comments without waiting for today’s outcome. Gratuitous appeals and advice have poured forth. We ignore them with the contempt which they deserve,” the judges said, adding, “it is one thing to criticise judgments but entirely another to cast aspersions on judges.”

Mr. Vanchinathan, in his reply, submitted that it was the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court who could take a call in the matter. “We also have no doubt on this score,” the judges said, and directed the Registry to place the papers before the CJ for appropriate action.