Everything about the recent impeachment notice submitted by INDIA bloc MPs against Justice GR Swaminathan, a judge of the Madras High Court, is shameful. Signed by over 100 MPs, the notice was triggered by his direction to the management of a temple to light a festival lamp on a stone pillar located close to a dargah.
The devotees of Lord Murugan had approached the court to revive the centuries-old practice of lighting the Karthigai Deepam (a festival lamp) at the Deepathoon, a stone lamp pillar situated about 50 metres from a dargah on Thiruparankundram hill. The hill has two temples—the Subramaniya Swamy Temple at the bottom and the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple midway—and the Sikkandar Badhusha Dargah at the top.
The respondents contended that the lamp should be lit near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple and not at Deepathoon, and further argued that the area required fresh demarcation and that the matter should be taken to a civil court. Justice Swaminathan rejected all three contentions on the basis of a 1923 decree in which the Privy Council held that the unoccupied portions of the hill belonged to the Hindus. Since the Deepathoon falls within this unoccupied area, the first objection failed. The remaining two objections were also untenable, as the decree—issued by a civil court—had already clearly demarcated the areas belonging to the temple and the dargah.
The Subramaniya Swamy Temple was a respondent in the matter. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board also stood as a respondent. An institution that claimed ownership of an entire village just last year now appeared in this case as well. The irony is difficult to miss.
Justice Swaminathan wasn’t wrong when he said, ‘The question is not one of custom. The question is one of right’. But the opposition obsessed with Nehruvian Secularism doesn’t want Hindus to get any rights. Their notice proves this. The MPs claim that the judge’s conduct raises ‘serious questions’ about ‘impartiality’, ‘secular functioning of the judiciary’ and ‘undue favouritism to a particular community’.
Such charges are difficult to sustain when the judge never relied on personal opinion. He went strictly by facts — the geography of the hill and a decree from 1923. If he had ignored both, perhaps the minority appeasement-driven MPs would have been pleased. But that would have meant abandoning the rule of law. Their act shows that this is exactly what they wanted.
Swaminathan ‘decides cases on the basis of a particular political ideology,’ the INDIA bloc has further noted. Several INDIA bloc leaders have made openly disparaging remarks about Hindu beliefs and practices in recent years. Whether Justice Swaminathan subscribes to any political ideology is an unproven charge. What is evident, however, is that the bloc itself follows a clear ideological line in its electoral calculations.
Lighting a lamp near a dargah does not, in any way, alter its religious character. The political frustration of a failed opposition is evident. Levelling such allegations against a sitting High Court judge who merely discharged his duty raises serious questions about whether this conduct undermines the dignity and authority of the judiciary. If ensuring equality before the law, as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, offends the bloc’s understanding of secularism, then such discriminatory principles deserve no place in a constitutional democracy.
Lastly, the bloc must ensure that it goes through their notices twice before making any submissions. A typographical error is present in this submitted notice. ‘…Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras…,’ the notice reads. The bloc forgot to include ‘High Court’. Desperation is a wonderful editor. It makes one delete nouns at will.
S Shiva is an independent journalist based in Delhi.