Chennai: On December 9, members of the INDIA bloc submitted an impeachment notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking the removal of Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court. The notice, endorsed by 107 Members of Parliament (MP), was handed over by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Parliamentary Party leader Kanimozhi Karunanidhi in the presence of Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, Madurai MP Su. Venkatesan, Puducherry MP Vaithilingam and several others.

"The conduct of Justice G.R. Swaminathan raises serious questions regarding impartiality, transparency, and the secular functioning of the judiciary," states the notice. Filed under Article 217, and read with other provisions of the constitution, it accuses the judge of deciding cases on the basis of a particular political ideology in violation of the secular principles that bind the Indian judiciary.

Article 217 deals with the appointment and conditions of office related to a high court judge.

For nearly a week, right-wing organisations and the Tamil Nadu unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been stirring up the state's political waters. They have latched onto a new front in the long-running project of communal polarisation, one that Tamil Nadu's electorate has repeatedly and unequivocally rejected.

Every Karthigai Deepam, Tamil Hindus light lamps on the hillock behind the Arulmigu Subramaniya Swami Temple at Thirupparankundram in Madurai district. This has been the practice observed for generations. Yet this year, right-wing groups including the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Hindu Munnani and BJP functionaries demanded that the lamp be lit not at the customary spot near the Uchi Pillaiyar Temple but on a pillar located beside the Hazarath Sultan Sikandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah on the same hill.

The presence of the Sikandar Dargah at Thirupparankundram has long been a focal point for right-wing attempts to manufacture religious friction. Litigation over the temple dates to the early 19th century.

Also read: Court, Temple, Dargah: What Sparked the Latest Battle Over a Shared Sacred Hill?

A new flashpoint emerged on November 13, 2025, when a petition filed by Hindu Tamil Party (Hindu Makkal Katchi) founder Rama Ravi Kumar and others came before Justice G.R. Swaminathan at the Madurai Bench. The petition sought a direction forcing the temple administration to light lamps on the pillar near the dargah, something no previous judgment had ever mandated.

Justice Swaminathan visited the hill for an inspection on November 19 and heard the matter on November 24 and 27, reserving judgment on November 28 and delivering it on December 1. This rapid sequence of hearings and orders, and the subsequent contempt proceedings, are central to the impeachment notice submitted on December 9.

In his 49-page judgment, Justice Swaminathan repeatedly described the pillar near the dargah as a "deepathoon" (a term absent from earlier case records), using it 39 times. Although the petitioners produced no historical evidence that lamps were ever lit there, the judge drew on general references in Sangam literature about lighting lamps on hilltops to justify their demand.

He then ordered the temple administration to light the karthigai deepam at this pillar on December 3, in addition to the established customary site.

Addressing the media on December 4, senior DMK leader and Minister for Natural Resources S. Regupathy reiterated the state givernment's position: the 2014 Division Bench ruling by Justices Bhavani Subbaroyan and Kalyanasundaram clearly held that the Deepam must only be lit at the customary location.

"How can we implement a fresh order by a single judge overturning a settled custom without first appealing the Division Bench judgment?" Regupathy asked.

That implementing the new order could spark tensions was evident to all. On December 3, at 6 pm, temple authorities lit lamps only at the customary Uchi Pillaiyar site. Anticipating this, the petitioners had already moved to initiate contempt proceedings. At 6:05 pm, Justice Swaminathan took up the matter, directed the petitioners to ascend the hill and light the lamp at the deepathoon, and ordered CISF personnel, who are normally tasked with High Court security, to escort and protect them.

Also read: 'Sinister Eye on Political Gain': Left Parties Issue Joint Statement Condemning Madurai Hill Controversy

When the petitioners, accompanied by CISF personnel, attempted to climb the hill, the police prevented them, citing a prohibitory order issued under Section 163 of the BNSS (earlier Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Tensions flared, barricades were broken and police personnel were assaulted. The crowd eventually dispersed.

On December 4, Justice Swaminathan again took up the contempt case, quashed the prohibitory order and reiterated his directive that the petitioners and ten associates be allowed to climb the hill and light the lamp. This time, he also instructed the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, to provide "fullest protection and bandobust".

The petitioners reached the temple once again, along with BJP state president Nainar Nagenthran and many others, only to be stopped by police who said the state government intended to appeal. A heated stand-off followed, and Nagenthran, along with around 100 others, was arrested.

The pace and tenor of the judge's orders have been questioned by political leaders and legal experts, who argue that enforcing a volatile, disputed practice with such urgency risks igniting unnecessary communal tension.

Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi founder-president and MP Thol. Thirumavalavan, one of the signatories to the impeachment motion, called the judge's conduct a "blatant abuse of authority" that violated both the Constitution and the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

"When the karthigai deepam lighting had concluded peacefully, the judge not only enabled extremists to manufacture a flashpoint but even deployed CISF personnel to assist them. This is an extraordinary misuse of power," he said.

Even as the impeachment notice was being submitted in Delhi, Justice Swaminathan was hearing the contempt petition in the same matter at the Madurai Bench. Observing that his orders had been "breached repeatedly", he noted that officials "may have to explain why they behaved in the manner they did".

Since, in his view, the issue extended beyond the district administration, he summoned the chief secretary of Tamil Nadu and the additional director general of police (law and order) to appear before the court via video conference on December 17 at 3 p.m.

For now, the events unfolding around Thirupparankundram are no longer merely a dispute over where a lamp is lit; observers say they have become a test of constitutional sobriety and judicial restraint.

The author is an independent journalist.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.