More than 56 former judges of the Supreme Court and several high courts have issued a joint statement expressing solidarity with Madras High Court judge Justice G. R. Swaminathan after an impeachment motion against him was submitted in the Lok Sabha, describing the move as anti-democratic, anti-constitutional and an anathema to the rule of law.
The statement, signed by retired judges with decades of experience across constitutional, criminal and administrative law, argues that the impeachment attempt undermines judicial independence and risks setting a precedent that could chill free and fearless decision-making from the Bench. It asserts that disagreement with judicial reasoning or outcomes cannot form the basis for invoking the extraordinary constitutional mechanism of impeachment, which is intended for proven misconduct or incapacity.
Justice Swaminathan, appointed to the Madras High Court in 2021, has authored several judgments and orders that have drawn public attention for their emphasis on constitutional morality, freedom of expression and the limits of executive authority. Supporters say the impeachment motion appears to stem from disapproval of certain judicial observations rather than from any substantiated allegations of corruption or ethical breach, a distinction the signatories underline repeatedly.
The retired judges note that the Constitution deliberately makes impeachment of judges a rigorous and rare process, requiring a high threshold of proof and parliamentary consensus. They warn that using the mechanism as a response to unpopular rulings could erode the separation of powers by allowing the legislature to exert pressure on the judiciary. According to the statement, such a trend would weaken public confidence in courts as neutral arbiters and embolden attempts to politicise adjudication.
Legal scholars and senior advocates have echoed these concerns in private discussions and public forums, pointing out that robust criticism of judgments is an integral part of a constitutional democracy, but targeting individual judges through impeachment without clear evidence crosses a constitutional red line. Several have drawn parallels with earlier moments in judicial history when tensions between institutions tested democratic resilience, arguing that restraint on all sides is essential.
The impeachment motion has also revived debate about the scope of judicial speech and the extent to which judges may comment on social and constitutional issues while deciding cases. Former judges backing Justice Swaminathan argue that strong language in judgments, even when uncomfortable for those in power, does not amount to misconduct. They stress that courts are often required to address systemic failures and rights violations in forthright terms, particularly in cases involving civil liberties.
Within the legal community, there is a growing view that the episode reflects a broader strain in the relationship between constitutional institutions. Bar associations in several states have held meetings to discuss the implications, with many lawyers expressing concern that the move could have a deterrent effect on younger judges who may fear professional consequences for independent reasoning.
Parliamentary procedure provides for the examination of impeachment motions through a multi-stage process, including scrutiny of admissibility and, if accepted, the formation of an inquiry committee. Constitutional experts note that historically, very few such motions have progressed to removal, underscoring the gravity with which the framers viewed the independence of the higher judiciary. They caution that even initiating the process without compelling grounds can itself inflict reputational damage and institutional harm.
The statement by the former judges calls on lawmakers to reflect on the long-term consequences of their actions and to uphold the constitutional balance envisioned between Parliament and the courts. It urges that mechanisms for accountability be exercised with sobriety and fidelity to constitutional principles, not as instruments of political signalling or retribution.
Priyanka Gandhi questions push to rename MGNREGA 