Madras HC judge’s Sanatana Dharma remarks raise questions over judicial independence in India
Chennai: Madras High Court Justice G.R. Swaminathan has sparked fresh controversy by stating that he intends to keep Sanatana Dharma in his heart during the remaining years of his service, raising concerns over whether personal religious beliefs expressed by a sitting judge compromise the independence and secular mandate of India’s judiciary.
According to Kashmir Media Service, speaking at an event in Chennai, Justice G.R. Swaminathan expressed his hope to continue serving for another four and a half years, during which he intends to show excellence and keep Sanatana Dharma close to his heart.
The statement has drawn significant criticism, particularly due to the judge’s history of contentious comments regarding caste, religion, and social justice.
In recent months, several of his remarks, both in court and at public events, have attracted criticism from Dalit groups, civil society, and opposition political leaders, who said that the judge was promoting Brahminical and majoritarian views that undermine constitutional principles of equality and secularism.
In August 2025, INDIA bloc MPs wrote to Indian President Droupadi Murmu and the then Chief Justice BR Gavai expressing concern over the judge’s conduct. In their letter, they said that Justice Swaminathan showed preferential treatment toward advocates from the Brahmin community and those linked to Hindu right-wing ideologies.
Critics argue that invoking Sanatana Dharma—often seen as defending caste hierarchy, social exclusion, and Hindu majoritarian politics—by a sitting judge is particularly problematic, as it risks eroding judicial independence. Dalit and anti-caste movements in India have long maintained that references to Sanatana Dharma have historically been used to legitimize Brahminical dominance, patriarchal practices and discrimination against marginalized communities.
DMK spokesperson Saravanan Annadurai questioned: “When India became a republic, the only guiding light for justice is our Constitution. Will a judge be allowed to continue if he says Quran or Bible should guide him?”
Lawyer Ashish Goel posted: “Collegium gems like him should resign… This statement flies in the face of constitutional oath.” Another X user, D Selva Kumar, highlighted opposition to what Dr. B.R. Ambedkar rejected.
