Introduction
The proposed Justice G.R. Swaminathan Impeachment has triggered one of the most serious constitutional debates in recent years, bringing into focus the balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability. A notice for his removal, signed by more than 100 opposition Members of Parliament, has been submitted to the Lok Sabha Speaker alleging misconduct and lack of impartiality by a sitting judge of the Madras High Court.
Impeachment of judges is constitutionally permitted but intentionally made extremely difficult. The present controversy therefore raises a fundamental question: can disagreement with judicial reasoning justify invoking the impeachment mechanism?
Who Is Justice G.R. Swaminathan?
Justice G.R. Swaminathan was elevated as a judge of the Madras High Court in 2017. He is known for detailed judgments that frequently engage with constitutional philosophy, legal history, and comparative jurisprudence. His judicial work spans criminal law, constitutional interpretation, religious and cultural disputes, and questions of social justice.
What Triggered the Justice G.R. Swaminathan Impeachment Motion?
The immediate trigger for the impeachment notice was an order passed by Justice Swaminathan in relation to Thiruparankundram in Madurai. The dispute concerned the lighting of a Karthigai Deepam on a traditional stone pillar located near a dargah. The court permitted the lighting of the lamp, which led to political backlash from certain parties.
Critics alleged that the order reflected ideological bias and raised concerns regarding religious neutrality and constitutional secularism.
Allegations Mentioned in the Impeachment Notice
- Judicial bias and lack of neutrality
- Conduct unbecoming of a constitutional court judge
- Violation of secular constitutional principles
- Judicial indiscipline in observations and reasoning
Notably, the notice does not allege corruption, bribery, or personal enrichment, which have historically formed the core grounds for impeachment proceedings.
Constitutional Framework for Removal of Judges
Articles 124(4) and 218 of the Constitution govern the removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. A judge may be removed only on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
Procedure for Impeachment
- Notice signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs
- Admission of the motion by the Speaker or Chairman
- Constitution of a three-member inquiry committee
- Proof of charges after investigation
- Special majority vote in both Houses of Parliament
Opposition by Former Judges
In response to the Justice G.R. Swaminathan impeachment notice, 56 former judges of the Supreme Court and various High Courts publicly opposed the move. They warned that using impeachment to challenge judicial reasoning threatens judicial independence and could intimidate judges from delivering fearless decisions.
They emphasized that the proper remedy against incorrect or controversial judgments lies in appeal or review, not impeachment.
Judicial Independence vs Judicial Accountability
The controversy highlights a constitutional tension. Judicial independence protects judges from political retaliation and allows them to decide cases without fear. Judicial accountability ensures ethical conduct and adherence to constitutional values.
The central issue is whether disagreement with a judge’s interpretative approach can amount to constitutional misbehaviour.
Historical Perspective on Impeachment in India
India has witnessed very few impeachment attempts against judges, and none have resulted in removal through parliamentary vote. In past cases, allegations involved financial impropriety or abuse of office rather than dissatisfaction with judicial reasoning.
Legal Significance of the Justice G.R. Swaminathan Impeachment Attempt
- It focuses on judicial reasoning rather than corruption
- It risks expanding the meaning of proved misbehaviour
- It may weaken the separation of powers doctrine
- It could have a chilling effect on judicial independence
What Happens Next?
The Speaker of the Lok Sabha will decide whether to admit the impeachment motion. If admitted, an inquiry committee will be formed to examine whether the allegations meet the high constitutional threshold required for removal.
Conclusion
The Justice G.R. Swaminathan Impeachment controversy is a test of India’s constitutional framework. While judicial accountability is essential, transforming ideological or legal disagreement into impeachment risks undermining the independence of the judiciary.
How this episode is handled will have lasting consequences for the balance of power between Parliament and the judiciary and for the future of constitutional governance in India.
