INDIA Bloc MPs Increase Considerations About Madras Excessive Courtroom Decide Earlier than Thirupparankundram Controversy

4 months earlier than the Thirupparankundram row, MPs of the INDIA bloc wrote individually to President Droupadi Murmu after which Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai in regards to the conduct of Madras Excessive Courtroom decide, Justice G.R. Swaminathan, accusing him of favouring advocates from the Brahmin neighborhood and people related to “proper wing ideologies”.

The similar letters had been dated August 11, 2025, 4 months earlier than the Opposition sought a movement within the Parliament to take away Justice Swaminathan, a decide on the Madurai Bench of the Excessive Courtroom.

These letters stated Justice Swaminathan’s conduct amounted to “proved misbehaviour and gross misconduct”, affecting the impartiality, transparency and the secular functioning of the judiciary.

“Throughout his tenure as a Single Bench Decide, Justice G.R. Swaminathan is perceived to have persistently prioritised listings and time slots for a selected group of advocates, significantly these from the Brahmin neighborhood and people aligned with proper wing ideologies,” the letters stated.

The MPs stated the sample of the decide’s conduct confirmed a “caste-based desire”, contributing to a notion of exclusivity and caste alignment in judicial functioning.

The highlight is educated on the decide after his latest order directing the authorities of the Subramaniya Swamy Temple at Thirupparankundram, Madurai, to make sure that Karthigai Deepam was lit at a deepathoon (pillar) close to a dargah atop the hill.

“A number of rulings and observations by His Lordship mirror a discernible ideological leaning right-wing political philosophy. Whereas judges might maintain private beliefs, these should not affect judicial reasoning, significantly in circumstances involving basic rights and minority protections as enshrined within the Structure,” the letters stated.

The letters quoted a number of cases which, in line with them, displayed the “ideological partisanship” of the decide. One in all them, the letters stated, was in a case to allow ‘Annathanam’ (donating free meals to the devotees) and ‘Angapradakshinam’ (rolling over plantain leaves left by devotees after consuming) at a temple in Karur.

“His Lordship’s order permitted this uncivilised follow, superseding a previous Division Bench judgment which had banned the identical follow on the identical temple as inhuman… This notion of ideological partisanship undermines public belief in judicial neutrality and challenges the expectation that courts stay unbiased of political or social affiliations,” the letters had stated.