In recent weeks, Justice GR Swaminathan’s name has been all over the place, cropping up more often in parliamentary rhetoric than in law reports. His December 1 order to allow lighting of lamps on Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai triggered a volatile chain of events.
The Tamil Nadu government disregarded the order, inviting contempt proceedings. Opposition MPs announced impeachment motion. A division bench of the Madras High Court later upheld Justice Swaminathan’s decision and declared that the hilltop, the ancient stone pillar (Deepathoon or Deepak Stambh), the temple and the surrounding land belonged to the temple, and any contrary claim would amount to trespass.
The rationale was that decades ago a lamp had been lit on a pillar atop the hill until it was removed, apparently so as not to offend the sensibilities of worshipers at the adjacent dargah. There were historical and archaeological aspects to the dispute – but his decision changed everything.
Justice Swaminathan himself became a story.
An ideological outcast, or a text-bound judge?
This was not Justice Swaminathan’s first case of public outcry, nor the first time he was singled out as an ideological outlier or judicial provocateur. But a closer look at his career reveals something less controversial. Justices who have worked with him have described Justice Swaminathan, 57, as deeply aware of his ideological position, yet he insists on “taking his decisions within constitutional limits”, even if it complicates how they are read and reported.
A decade before the Madurai hilltop became the center of controversy, Justice Swaminathan, then a lawyer, found himself in the middle of another controversy.
In January 2015, Tamil writer Perumal Murugan was summoned to his hometown Tiruchengode for “peace talks” by the district administration. Hindu organizations were protesting against Murugan’s 2010 novel Madhorubagan. The administration’s solution was mediation.
Justice Swaminathan, who was then Assistant Solicitor General in the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court, attended the meeting as Murugan’s lawyer and, by most accounts, friend. According to the participants, he argued that while Murugan should not apologise, a writer’s freedom cannot be traded for administrative convenience. But the pressure became stronger. Murugan apologized unreservedly and announced on Facebook that “the writer in him is dead.” Justice Swaminathan revealed that the police had suggested Murugan to “exile himself” from his hometown in the interest of law and order.
A year later, the Madras High Court quashed all criminal proceedings against Murugan and his publisher in a landmark ruling on artistic freedom. Murugan returned to writing and public life and dedicated his next novel “Poonachi” to Justice Swaminathan and his wife Kamakshi. Murugan wrote, “That you can transcend ideological differences and bind people together with love is an important lesson I learned from him.”
Bench Height:
Around the same time, Justice Swaminathan’s professional life took a turning point. In 2017, the then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, Sanjay Kishan Kaul (who himself was soon to be elevated to the Supreme Court) proposed his name for elevation to the High Court. Justice Swaminathan, a first-generation lawyer in Thiruvarur, was appointed additional judge in June and was made a permanent judge in April 2019.
Justice Kaul recalls that it was the Perumal Murugan case that brought Swaminathan to his attention. He said, “It was Swaminathan who was standing with him. I saw him taking up that case and standing up for someone who was being harassed by people from all sides. And I thought to myself, a person with such conviction and integrity should be encouraged, he should be brought to the bench.”
Justice Kaul had elevated forty-six of the sixty names proposed during his tenure. “And I can say that Swaminathan is one of the best judges of the Madras High Court,” he said.
RSS’s past and its consequences:
Friends and colleagues say it is Justice Swaminathan’s ideology and background that complicate the picture. HT contacted Justice Swaminathan for comment but did not receive any response.
He joined Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in 1994 and worked as a full-time pracharak for two and a half years. He does not deny this past, nor obscure his righteousness. In Tamil Nadu, where caste, faith and politics are a volatile mix, this openness has proved inflammable.
During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, when Tablighi Jamaat members became national attractions, Justice Swaminathan was part of the bench that allowed foreign members of the group, who were stranded across Tamil Nadu and faced criminal charges, to return to their home countries. The court held that the prosecution was not sustainable, being based more on suspicion than evidence.
Recently, he quashed the preventive detention of YouTuber Savukku Shankar, and reminded the state that personal dislike or political inconvenience cannot supersede constitutional limits under detention laws. The court held that disagreement, no matter how bitter, is not grounds for imprisonment.
In another case, involving a woman from Tamil Nadu whose husband died in Cameroon and whose employer had refused compensation, Swaminathan on December 15, 2025 directed the Central government to formulate a policy to assist Indians facing hardship abroad. The decision was based on constitutional obligation as well as ancient notions of “Rajdharma”, which emphasized the duty of the state towards its citizens beyond territorial boundaries.
However, critics point to his upper caste Hindu identity and RSS affiliation as explanatory keys to his decisions.
Justice K Chandru, former judge of the Madras HC, said, “Judge GR Swaminathan may grant relief in individual cases, but his public conduct reflects an RSS-driven agenda that violates his oath to uphold the Constitution and undermines Dr Ambedkar’s vision of equality and minority rights. There are many examples that reflect his biases.”
He said, “Last year in an RSS meeting he had said that the Constitution has been copied from the 1935 Act and there is no originality in our Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar himself had said that he would not waste time in replying to such people. Yet, a sitting judge of the High Court speaks like this.”
deepathoon rule
But on the Deepathoon issue, people familiar with the proceedings reject the suggestion that Swaminathan acted on impulse or allowed personal convictions to shape the outcome. They point out that the decision was based on documentary material, specifically the Privy Council agreement governing the disputed land, which recorded that the stone pillar was part of the temple property. Records show that the practice of lighting lamps atop the hill had been in practice for a long time, with no serious controversy.
The contempt proceedings were not initiated suo motu, but after the state refused to comply with the court’s directions. The state appealed, citing law and order concerns, but a division bench rejected the appeal. “If the reasoning was flawed or ideologically motivated, the Division Bench could have said so. Why does the criticism focus only on a single judge?” A senior lawyer said.
Colleagues describe Justice Swaminathan as disciplined. His disposal rate is the highest in the Madras High Court. Two years ago, he published a rare thing in the Indian judiciary: an individual performance report card detailing his output over seven years. He also asked the Bar to correct any errors in the records.
Justice Indira Banerjee, who administered him the oath of office, remembers the judge being focused on work. “He is personally very religious, but I have never heard any complaints about him being biased,” he said. His domestic life, he added, was structured around caregiving: his wife devoted herself to their exceptionally able son. “His only focus was work,” she said.
Others point to cool details. When he assumed the post of judge, he gave his office to two colleagues – one Christian, one Muslim.
During his years as a lawyer, he never charged any fees, and accepted fees commensurate with the ability of clients. He has publicly stated that caring for his son has changed him, that seeing a child untouched by caste, religion or politics forces him to re-examine everything that matters.
Allegations, denials and politics:
The impeachment motion brought by Tamil Nadu’s ruling party DMK and Congress is based, in part, on allegations of caste bias in court listing and access. A letter circulated among MPs cited the perception that some advocates, especially Brahmin and right-wing affiliated lawyers, get preferential treatment.
However, a group of senior advocates who regularly appear before the judge reject the allegation. “Hindutva identity may be important to him but he does not favor any caste,” said a lawyer. Senior advocate Srinivas Raghavan, who has known Swaminathan since 2004, described him as “the darling of the Madurai bench”, adding, “If you ask for a referendum, everyone will support him.”
Others attribute the dispute to politics. According to one article, tensions escalated in May 2025 when a senior lawyer and DMK member was silenced during the virtual hearing as the court proceeded to deliver its verdict. That incident hardened the party’s perception of bias, lawyers say.
However, stakeholders, including state lawyers and representatives, disagree. “There is no single trigger. The government has nothing to do with being in favor or against a particular judge… In the case of Justice Swaminathan, the problem starts when he allows his political ideology to seep into his decisions. Even if you support it with constitutional provisions, you can never allow your personal beliefs and politics to be imported into your decisions and duties as a judge,” said another senior lawyer, who did not want to be named. Said.
For his part, Justice Kaul views the impeachment attempt with concern. “What ethos does this establish? If every unpopular decision invites a personal attack on the judge?” he asked. He said, “He is a judge who goes by the book, anticipates resistance and moves anyway. As long as he is not overturning any law while abiding by his commitments, there should be no problem.”
As the political storm around him is more intense than his decisions, Justice Swaminathan remains on the bench with about five years remaining before his scheduled retirement in 2030 – time enough, supporters and critics alike admit, to deliver the final verdict on his legacy, rather than the noise around it.
