A major controversy has erupted over alleged ideological bias within India’s judiciary. Lawmakers from the INDIA bloc have raised serious questions about the conduct of Madras High Court judge Justice G.R. Swaminathan. As far back as August 2025, the MPs had written to President Droupadi Murmu and the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), accusing the judge of favouring lawyers associated with the Brahmin community and right-wing ideology.
The letters, dated August 11 and now publicly revealed, allege that Justice Swaminathan’s actions amount to “proven misconduct and gross misbehaviour.” The MPs claimed that while presiding over a single-judge bench, he deliberately prioritised cases argued by a select group of lawyers, creating an impression of caste-based exclusivity within the judicial process.
According to the lawmakers, “This pattern undermines judicial impartiality, transparency, and the secular character of the judiciary as enshrined in the Constitution.”
The MPs cited several of Justice Swaminathan’s rulings as evidence of ideological bias. They specifically pointed to a case involving a temple in Karur, where the judge permitted traditional practices such as ‘annadanam’ and ‘angapradakshinam’. The MPs argued that this ruling bypassed an earlier division bench order that had prohibited these practices on the grounds that they were inhumane.
The letter stated, “Judges are entitled to their personal beliefs, but those beliefs must not influence judicial reasoning, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights and the protection of minorities.”
The complaint predates the recent directive by Justice Swaminathan that intensified the controversy. In that order, he instructed authorities of the Thirupparankundram temple in Madurai to light the Karthigai Deepam on a lamp post situated near a hilltop dargah.
Following this incident, opposition parties planned to move a resolution in Parliament seeking the judge’s removal from the Madurai Bench. The INDIA bloc argues that his conduct violates judicial ethics and erodes public trust.
The episode underscores growing concerns that even the country’s highest courts may be vulnerable to ideological leanings—an issue that, according to critics, warrants an urgent and high-level investigation.
