In a development of profound constitutional significance, a coalition of 107 Members of Parliament from the opposition INDIA bloc has formally submitted a notice of motion for the removal of Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court. This notice, handed to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on December 9, 2025, invokes Article 217 read with Article 124 of the Constitution of India, alleging “proven misbehaviour” and “incapacity.” The sheer scale of this parliamentary intervention, spearheaded by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and supported by senior leaders including Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Akhilesh Yadav, marks a severe escalation in the ongoing friction between the judiciary and the executive in Tamil Nadu. As observers of constitutional integrity, we note that such a motion—requiring the signatures of at least 100 Lok Sabha members—is a rare instrument, historically reserved for the gravest instances of judicial alleged misconduct.
The immediate catalyst for this legislative maneuver is the contentious judicial standoff regarding the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam lamp atop the Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai. Justice Swaminathan’s December 1, 2025, directive mandated the lighting of the lamp on the Deepathoon (stone pillar), a site situated in sensitive proximity to the Sikandar Badusha Dargah. While the court framed this as the restoration of a traditional customary right that would not infringe upon the rights of the Dargah, the state executive refused enforcement, citing imminent law and order risks. The situation deteriorated rapidly when the High Court subsequently ordered Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) protection to facilitate the ritual, a move the state government challenged before a Division Bench and the Supreme Court. This direct confrontation over the enforcement of a writ in a religiously sensitive zone has seemingly fractured the delicate comity required between the judicial and executive branches.
However, the text of the impeachment motion suggests the grievances extend beyond a single jurisprudential dispute. The signatories have formally accused Justice Swaminathan of adjudicating cases based on a “particular political ideology” rather than the secular principles enshrined in the Constitution. Further allegations detailed in the notice claim undue favouritism was shown towards specific legal counsels, including Senior Advocate M. Sricharan Ranganathan, and raise questions regarding the transparency and impartiality of his judicial conduct. By framing the complaint around the violation of “secular functioning,” the petitioners are positioning this not merely as a disagreement with a verdict, but as a structural critique of judicial conduct they argue is incompatible with the oath of office.
Procedurally, the submission of this motion initiates a rigorous constitutional mechanism governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha must now determine whether to admit the motion. Should it be admitted, a three-member committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist would be constituted to investigate the charges. This process underscores the high threshold for judicial removal in India’s parliamentary democracy, designed to insulate the judiciary from political caprice while ensuring accountability. As this situation unfolds, it represents a critical stress test for India’s constitutional machinery, placing the independence of the judiciary and the accountability of judges in sharp, simultaneous focus.
