In a rare and resounding statement, 56 former judges of India’s higher judiciary have come together to denounce the recent attempt to impeach Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madras High Court. The ex-judges, including two former Supreme Court judges, five former chief justices of high courts, and 49 retired high court judges, described the move as a “brazen attempt to browbeat judges” and a direct challenge to the independence of the judiciary and the fundamental principles of constitutional democracy.

The Case That Sparked Controversy

The controversy arose from a December 1 judgment delivered by Justice Swaminathan. The single-judge bench ruled that the Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple was duty-bound to light the ceremonial lamp at the Deepathoon, in addition to the customary lighting near the Uchi Pillaiyar Mandapam. Importantly, the judgment clarified that carrying out this act would not encroach upon the rights of the adjacent dargah or the Muslim community, effectively balancing the religious rights of different faiths in the area.

However, the ruling immediately triggered a political and social backlash. Several opposition MPs, led by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on December 9, seeking to initiate a motion for the impeachment of Justice Swaminathan. The MPs alleged that the judge’s decision was improper and merited removal, raising alarms across legal and civic circles about the misuse of the impeachment mechanism for political purposes.

Statement by Former Judges

In response, the 56 ex-judges issued a detailed statement warning that the attempt to impeach Justice Swaminathan represented a dangerous precedent for India’s judiciary. They said, “This is a brazen attempt to browbeat judges who do not fall in line with the ideological and political expectations of a particular section of society.”

The statement emphasized that such an approach, if allowed to proceed, “would cut at the very roots of our democracy and the independence of the judiciary.” It stressed that the reasons cited by the MPs, even if taken at face value, were entirely inadequate to justify resorting to such a rare, exceptional, and serious constitutional mechanism as impeachment.

Pattern of Intimidation

The ex-judges highlighted that this was not an isolated incident. Instead, it forms part of a troubling pattern in India’s constitutional history, where political actors have attempted to discredit or intimidate the higher judiciary whenever judgments conflict with their interests. They warned that weaponizing impeachment to enforce political or ideological compliance threatens the very fabric of judicial independence and undermines the rule of law.

They observed, “The very purpose of the impeachment mechanism is to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, not to convert it into a tool of arm-twisting, signalling, and retaliation.” By using the threat of removal as a means to compel judges to conform to political expectations, the statement argued, the constitutional safeguard is being turned into a tool of intimidation.

Impact on Democracy and the Rule of Law

The ex-judges’ statement underscored that judicial independence is a cornerstone of constitutional democracy. Attempts to subject judges to partisan pressures not only endanger individual judges but also have a chilling effect on the judiciary as an institution. They warned that today’s target might be one judge; tomorrow, the entire judiciary could face similar pressures if such trends are left unchecked.

The former judges appealed to all stakeholders—including members of Parliament, the legal fraternity, civil society, and citizens at large—to unequivocally denounce attempts to politicize impeachment proceedings. They stressed that judges must remain answerable only to the Constitution and their oaths of office, rather than yielding to partisan political pressures or ideological intimidation.

Historical Context of Judicial Impeachment in India

The impeachment of judges in India is extremely rare and has historically been reserved for cases of proven misconduct or incapacity. The Constitution provides a rigorous process under Article 124(4) and Article 217, requiring a special majority in both Houses of Parliament for removal. The stringent process is designed to protect judicial independence by preventing arbitrary or politically motivated action against judges.

In the past, only a handful of judges have faced formal impeachment proceedings, and none have been removed by Parliament since the establishment of the mechanism. The present attempt against Justice Swaminathan has therefore drawn heightened attention due to concerns that it may undermine the protective framework enshrined in the Constitution.

Significance of the Swaminathan Judgment

Justice Swaminathan’s ruling sought to ensure that the temple fulfills its ceremonial obligations while maintaining harmony with the rights of neighboring communities. Legal analysts have noted that the judgment exemplifies the delicate balancing act that courts often perform in matters involving religious and cultural practices. The backlash against the decision, therefore, appears to reflect a political and ideological disagreement, rather than a judicial lapse or misconduct.

The ex-judges’ statement reflects this sentiment, highlighting that judges should be free to deliver decisions based on law and principles of justice without fear of political retribution. The statement warned that undermining judicial autonomy in this manner could erode public trust in the judiciary and weaken the separation of powers, a fundamental principle of India’s constitutional framework.

Broader Implications for Judicial Independence

The current episode has sparked nationwide debates on the independence of the judiciary and the role of impeachment as a constitutional safeguard. Legal experts caution that converting impeachment into a political weapon could have long-term consequences for governance, accountability, and the public’s faith in the legal system.

The 56 former judges’ statement is notable not only for its collective weight but also for the clear message it sends to policymakers and political actors: Judicial independence is non-negotiable, and attempts to coerce or intimidate judges threaten the democratic fabric of the nation.

Call to Action

The ex-judges called on all concerned stakeholders to condemn any attempt to use impeachment as a political tool. They stressed that judges must be guided solely by the Constitution, law, and their conscience, rather than external pressures or partisan considerations. The statement concluded with a firm reminder: safeguarding judicial independence is essential to ensuring that justice remains blind, impartial, and fair.

---

The statement by the former judges underscores the seriousness of the current controversy. While the motion to impeach Justice Swaminathan is still in its early stages, the widespread legal and public attention it has garnered serves as a crucial defense of judicial independence in India. Analysts suggest that this episode could define how political forces interact with the judiciary in the future, making the ex-judges’ collective condemnation a milestone statement in the ongoing discourse on judicial autonomy and democracy in India.