Accounting to multiple accounts, the courtroom atmosphere was tense. According to Those Present, The Judge Questioned Vanchinathan on Whater He Stood By His Allegations. When the advocate Requested a written a writen order before, Justice Swaminathan Reportedly made a critical remark about him in open court.

The row

The Row Began When Vanchinathan, A Practizing Lawyer and State Coordinator of the People’s Rights Protection Center, Submitted a 38-Page Petition to The CJ in June 2025. Swaminathan, Only an Inquiry by the Chief Justice under the Supreme Court’s “In-House Procedure” for Judicial Accountability-A System endorsed by the Apex Court in C Ravichandran Iyer VS. Justice am Bhattacharjee (1995), which holds that such complaints must be justice by the choice justice, not the subject judge.

While hearing an untreated case on thursday, justice swaminathan notided vanchinathan’s name as having earllier filed vakalat For one of the respondents. Althought the lawyer had been returned the case papers, the judge summoned him to court the same day and questioned him in person.

When the advocate declined to verbally affirm or retract the petition without a formal query, the judge directed the registry to issue a writen questionnaire. In open court, the judge referred to vanchinathan’s past suspension by the bar council and cited supreme court precedents to argue that the lawyer’s conduct amounted to climinal contemp.

Some pushback

On Saturday, Eight Retired Judges – Including Justice K Chandru and Justice D Hariparanthhan – Issued a Rare Public Appeal, Asking Justice Swaminathan and Justice Rajasekar To Step Back Conmpt. Proceedings. “In the absence of any action take by the choice of India on the petition, it is premature for the learned judgment to initiate action,” their Joint Letter read.

The statement invoked the ravichandran iyer ruling, reitrating that judicic impropriety, if alleged, must be adherly under a controlled and impartial framework – and not if the bench by the bench by the bench.

This episode comes after the child dy chandrachud stated in November 2023 That contempt power under articles 129 and 215 of the constitution exist “to safguard the functions Criticism. ” He reiterated that fair criticism of judgment is permissible and vital in a constitutional democracy.

The rare appeal by retired judges of the madras Hc on Saturday Further Stated: “If and when the choice of the opinion is of the opinion that it is an invitation into the truthfulness or Otherwise. ‘In-house inquiry’ into those allegations made against the judge. “

“It is only when the in-house committee is of the opinion that is a prima faacie truth in the allegations made, he can take or order approving action in the matter. have also KK Sasidharan and SS Sundar.

The contempt order is found by justice swaminathan and Rajasekar said that vanchinathan’s conduct prima facie constitues Criminal Contempt of Court. “We, therefore, persisted with our Query as to what time he continuing that one of us (justice swaminathan) is being castest while his judicing his judicial duties. Question, he is asked to be posted in, “the order.

Vanchinathan has been asked to appeal before the court at 1:15 pm on July 28 with a responsibility to the question: “WHETER YOU, S Vanchinathan, Stand by your imputation of caste of justice on the Part of Justic Discharge of his judicial duties? “