Whole Ecosystem Has Ganged Up, But We Will Not Be Intimidated: Madras High Court Critises Retired Judges For Supporting Lawyer Who Alleged Caste Bias Against Judge

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court today referred to the Chief Justice of the High Court, proceedings for initiating criminal contempt case against Advocate S. Vanchinathan for making allegations of caste bias against Justice GR Swaminathan.

During the hearing, the Court came down heavily on some retired Judges, who had written a letter urging the Division Bench not to initiate contempt action against the Advocate, since the same Advocate had made a complaint against Justice Swaminathan to the Chief Justice of India, thereby insinuating that the contempt action is in retribution for the complaint.

Justice GR Swaminathan, who was sharing the Bench with Justice K. Rajasekar, told Vanchinathan, "We are also conscious of the Rule and Procedure. We are not fools. Tell this to the retired Judges who are standing with you. The whole ecosystem has ganged up behind you. We are aware of that. We will not be intimidated. We will not be cowed down. Judicial independence is supreme".

The statement in the form of a letter was issued on Saturday by retired Justice K. Chandru, claiming to have been issued with the concurrance (written confirmation) of seven other retired Judges of the Madras High Court. However, the same day, retired Justice KK Sasidharan, whose name was among the seven retired Judges, dissociated himself from the statement, issuing a written statement saying, "I make it clear that I was not consulted nor have I sent any such "written confirmation" authorizing Mr. Justice K. Chandru to issue the said letter".

In its order, the Division Bench termed "unfortunate" the "gratuitous advice" that was "given by certain retired Judges". Justice Swaminathan remarked that what the retired Judges have done amounts to contempt, since the Court is seized of the matter.

The Court today displayed the alleged contemptuous interview in Court. "Let the whole Bar watch", Justice Swaminathan said.

Advocate Vanchinathan appeared in person and submitted that the order passed by the Court says that the contempt has been committed, even at the pre-cognisance stage. When he was asked for his response to what was displayed in Court, he said that he would respond only if something was given to him in writing.

Justice Swaminathan told Vanchinathan that he wants to hear Vanchinathan's response before initiating contempt proceedings. Justice Swaminathan asked if Vanchinathan is denying or accepting his earlier comments. However, Vanchinathan kept saying that he will only respond to what is given to him in writing, and that he will respond in writing.

The Court said that it has not initiated any contempt action against Vanchinathan yet, and that it only wants him to clarify his stand, "Whether you are continuing to make caste bias against one of us".

Justice Swaminathan clarified that the present proceedings has nothing to do with the complaint sent by Vanchinathan to the Chief Justice of India against Justice Swaminathan.

"Last 3, 4 years, you have been slandering me. I have not taken any action against you", Justice Swaminathan said.

Justice Swaminathan said, "Mr. Vanchinathan, I, hundred per cent, respect your right to brutally criticise my judgments, you are entitled to it. I will be the first person to stand with you. But when you are alleging caste bias, things take a different turn. That, I will not tolerate".

Justice Swaminathan told Vanchinathan that he can show fifty examples of such allegations being made against him by Vanchinathan. Justice Swaminathan said that Vanchinathan alleged in an interview that he was biased against Senior Advocate P. Wilson because he was not a Brahmin.

Vanchinathan kept saying that he would only respond to the charge framed by the Court.

The Court then proceeded to pass the order: "S. Vanchinathan has been scandalising one of us (Justice GR Swaminathan) by attributing caste bias and since his name appeared in the cause list as one of the Counsel for the 3rd Respondent, notice was issued to him to appear in person. He appeared in person on July 25 and demanded that he should be given notice in writing. In terms of the request made by Mr. Vanchinathan on July 25, a pre-cognisance notice was issued to him. Today, Vanchinathan appeared in person and gave a written reply. Vanchinathan has proceeded on the premise that the present proceedings are linked to the complaint dated 14 June, 2025 submitted by him to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and other Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We fail to understand as to the basis on which such atrocious allegation has been made against the Court. In our earlier order dated July 25, we have stated that Vanchinathan has been making scandalous allegations. Nowhere in the said order, there is any reference to the complaint said to have been given by Vanchinathan to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We clarify once again that the proceedings on hand has nothing to do with the alleged complaint said to have been given by Vanchinathan".

Further, the Court said in its order, "It is a fact that in social media, several interviews attributed to Vanchinathan are making the rounds, making the allegation that one of us is casteist. We did not want to straightaway refer the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to consider taking action. We wanted to comply with the principles of natural justice. That is why one of the videos was played in the presence of the members of the Bar. But Vanchinathan was not willing to own up the contents of the video. He kept on repeating that he has already clarified his stand in writing. We place on record that Vanchinathan is not giving an affirmative answer to the specific question posed by this Court. We have to necessarily remark that when this Court is seized of the matter, it is most unfortunate that gratuitous advice was given by certain retired Judges of this Court. The very organising of the public meeting by Vanchinathan is again very unfortunate and that also will amount to contempt. These are only tentative observations made by this Court. As requested by Vanchinathan himself, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice to consider taking appropriate action, if so deemed fit".

He also remarked that what the retired Judges have done is contempt since the Court was seized of the matter.

On July 24, the Court had passed an order asking Advocate 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 Advocate prima facie constituted criminal contempt of court.

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

The order is uploaded after the publication of the report.

Click here to read/download Order