Madras HC Slams Retired Judges’ Remarks in Advocate Vanchinathan’s Caste Bias Case

Introduction

At the end of July 2025, the Madras High Court strongly condemned eight retired judges who asked the court to give up writing contempt proceedings against Advocate S. Vanchinathan.

The retired judges requested that the bench hold off on taking further action until the Chief Justice of India made a decision. Instead of considering the retired judges’ appeal, the High Court described their intervention as unfortunate and stated that its operations would continue to adhere to the prescribed law without any outside interference.

Background to the Case

Advocate Vanchinathan, practicing out of the Madurai Bench, wrote a 38-page letter to the Chief Justice of India in June 2025. In the letter, Advocate Vanchinathan alleged that Justice G. R. Swaminathan discriminated against certain groups of people in his court proceedings. His assertion invoked delicate questions of caste bias in the actions of the court.

At the hearing on July 24, 2025, the bench of Justices Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar questioned Vanchinathan as to whether he was making these serious allegations. Justice Swaminathan had a sharp response when he requested a formal, written questionnaire and not a verbal one and questioned his intentions, stating that he was a comedy piece.

In a school classroom, if a student believes that the teacher is grading theI was unfairly perceived by the teacher as an insult when the student demanded written proof before speaking. Similarly, the harsh statement made by the judge indicated that even an implication lacking clear evidence could undermine credibility in courts.

Retired Judges’ Intervention

On 26 July, eight retired judges of the Madras High Court in a joint statement expressed concerns over the Supreme Court giving Jaishankar the mandate to choose a new chief justice. They asked the division bench to avert any contempt proceeding at this point and wait until the CJI’s decision. They underlined that their appeal was only aimed at protecting the face of the court of law.

For example, if there is a sports club in which old members inquire of the coach if he could refrain from punishing the youth player and the club president has a look at the incident. This approach is probably a symptom of their fairness, but it could also put the coach in a lose-lose situation; the coach would then be forced to choose between rewarding the seniors and obeying the rules.

High Court’s Rebuke

The current bench expressed regret, stating that it is “unfortunate” that eight former judges had gone so far. The court’s main duty was to apply the law fairly, regardless of any outside influence, however well-meaning.
Such a response highlights the fact that once judges retire, they are not supposed to participate in attempting to influence active judicial processes so that the serving judges can determine cases in their own independent way.

Think of a referee in a sporting game. Former referees may provide off-field coaching, but it is up to the in-charge referee to enforce the rules of the game and not what prior referees think. It is in this regard that the Madras High Court response echoes when it comes to judicial autonomy.

Legal Framework: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

The case of contempt against Advocate Vanchinathan occurs under the act of Contempt of Courts, 1971. Section 2(c) of the Act states the definition of criminal contempt in the sense that the criminal contempt shall consist of any scandalous or defamatory language with regard to a court or a judge voiced by an individual and is likely to diminish the worth of courts. Section 12 provides the power of court to give a show-cause notice to the accused as to why he/she should not be punished

The court ensures fairness by adhering to these sections. Just as traffic rules require consistent enforcement, the rules that uphold judicial respect must also be implemented impartially and without favoritism or fear. The court’s efforts to follow procedure remind us that no one is above the law, whether retired or on duty.

Conclusion

What is seen in the interaction between the Madras High Court and their retired judges is that there is a fine line between respecting the judiciary and the judicial independence. Whereas the former judge wanted to vindicate the name of the institution, the High Court insisted on the rule of law being applied without the outside intervention.

The judicial The judicial system should be run like a classroom or a sports game, with a set of rules that those in power can enforce but in a manner that does not put unnecessary influence on the system, so that all voices can be listened to but all rules also can be observed.