The Madras High Court has strongly condemned attempts to launch communal campaigns against judges on social media, asserting that such actions weaken the judicial system and pose a significant threat to its independence and integrity. The remarks were made during proceedings concerning Advocate S. Vanchinathan, who had made public allegations accusing Justice G.R. Swaminathan of caste and communal bias in the discharge of his judicial duties. The case prompted the Court to take serious note of such accusations, questioning the motive behind them and the implications they have for the judicial process.
The bench, comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice K. Rajasekar, summoned Vanchinathan to clarify whether he stood by his statements or wished to retract them. The Court maintained that while constructive criticism of judgments is permissible in a democratic society, personal attacks on judges, especially those suggesting bias based on caste or community, are unacceptable and harmful to the judiciary's credibility. During the hearing, when Vanchinathan declined to offer an oral explanation and instead demanded a written order, Justice Swaminathan responded sharply, remarking that the advocate was behaving like a "comedy piece," emphasizing the seriousness of the issue.
The Court pointed out that judges act according to their judicial oath and conscience, and imputing communal motives to their decisions without evidence reflects a biased and jaundiced outlook. It warned that launching communal campaigns, particularly via social media, could undermine public trust in the institution and damage the impartiality expected of judicial offices. The bench further stated that while the judiciary is open to scrutiny and criticism, deliberate and communal vilification cannot be permitted under the pretext of free speech.
The Court also took issue with the role of social media platforms, accusing them of enabling and profiting from defamatory and divisive content. It emphasized that such unregulated content, particularly that which targets judges, must be addressed with urgency. The bench highlighted the need for regulatory measures to ensure that these platforms do not become instruments for destabilizing the judiciary. Additionally, the Court clarified that lawyers making such serious and unfounded allegations may be held guilty of professional misconduct and should be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.
In its remarks, the bench also responded to a letter signed by a group of retired judges who had urged restraint in proceeding with contempt action against Vanchinathan. The Court described this as unfortunate and premature, noting that the Chief Justice of India had not yet addressed the underlying complaint. It was pointed out that some retired judges had distanced themselves from the collective statement, further undermining its credibility. The High Court emphasized that it would not be swayed by collective pressure or intimidated by public narratives meant to protect one individual at the expense of the institution.
The matter has been referred to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court for appropriate directions, underscoring the seriousness with which the judiciary views attempts to delegitimize it through communal allegations. The Court reiterated that protecting the independence and dignity of the judiciary is essential to maintaining the rule of law and that efforts to erode public confidence in judges through social media campaigns cannot be tolerated.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.