The Madras High Court has asked Advocate S. Vanchinathan to appear in person on July 28, 2025 and respond to the query whether he stands by his imputation of caste bias on the part of Justice G.R. Swaminathan. The High Court held that the conduct of the Counsel prima facie constituted criminal contempt of court.

It came to the High Court’s notice that one of the advocates had made a scandalous allegation that Justice Swaminathan was exhibiting communal and caste bias in the discharge of his judicial duties.

The Division Bench of Justice G.R.Swaminathan and Justice K. Rajasekar said, “...the conduct of Thiru.Vanchinathan prima facie constitutes criminal contempt of court. That is why, we could not have dropped the proceedings following his statement that he is no longer the counsel for the third respondent in this writ appeal.”

Senior Counsel B.Saravanan represented the Appellant while Advocate Sachin Rahul represented the Respondent.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the Advocate was suspended by the Bar Council of India because his conduct was unbecoming of an advocate. Though he was expected to improve his conduct after the revocation of the suspension, he had not changed his ways. “He continues to slander judiciary. The social media is replete with his videos. It is one thing to criticise judgments but entirely another to cast aspersions on judges”, the Bench said.

Reference was made to a judgment of the Kerala High Court in Suo motu, High Court of Kerala v. P.K. Suresh Kumar (2025) whereby a contemnor was very recently convicted and sentenced for attributing ideological bias to certain Judges of the High Court. The Bench also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Vijay Kurle, In re, (2021) wherein it has been observed that when there is a concerted attack by members of the Bar who profess to be the members of an organization having a large following, then the court cannot shut its eyes to the slanderous and scandalous allegations made.

Coming to the case at hand, the Bench persisted with the query as to whether the Counsel continued to maintain that Justice Swaminathan was being casteist while discharging his judicial duties. He refused to answer this question and wanted the Bench to pose this query in writing.

The Bench thus directed the Registry to serve the questionnaire to the Counsel to enable him to respond if he stands by the imputation of caste bias on the part of the Judge. The matter has now been listed on July 28, 2025.

Cause Title: Dr. D.Vetrichelvan v. The Tamil University (Case No.: W.A(MD)No.510 of 2023)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Counsel B. Saravanan

Respondent: Advocates Sachin Rahul, G. Prabhu Rajadurai R. Ganesh Prabhu, Special Government Pleader C. Venkatesh Kumar

Click here to read/download Order


Madras High CourtJustice GR SwaminathanJustice K Rajasekar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.