NEWS ANALYSIS: THIRUPPARANKUNDRAM CASE- INDIA BLOC IMPEACHMENT MOTION AGAINST HIGH COURT JUDGE

Amit Raj

City law College Janakpuri extension Lucknow

Editor : Harsh Kashyap

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court On Friday (December 5,2025) Saw A Mercurial Few Moments When A Tamilnadu Government Counsel ‘S Effort For An Early Listing Of An Appeal Challenging A Madras High Court Order Allowing Worshippers Of The Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple To Light Lamps At The Deepathoon (Stine Lamp Pillar) Atop The Thirupparankundram Hill, Located Close To A Dargah, Was Resisted By The Rival Camp As An Attempt To Create “DRAMA”.

And the case move is a direct consequence of the controversial Thriuparankundram Karthigai Deepam lamp-lighting order passed by the judge on (1December,2025), which triggered major,political legal and communal tension in Tamil Nadu.

For that reason the opposite Party of Indian move to Lok Sabha Speaker OR Members of Parliament belonging to the INDIAN opposition bloc officially submitted an impeachment notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking the removal of Justice G.R.Swaminathan as a Judge.

BACKGROUND: WHAT THE CASE WAS ABOUT

Thiruparankundram Hill-A Sensitive Religion Sites

1.       The Hill hosts both a Hindu temple and a Muslim Dargah making it a zero of delicate religious coexistence.

2.       Traditionally, the Karthigai Deepam ritual (Lighting of a ceremonial Lamp) is performed at a lower pillar.

3.       The dispute concerned permission to light the lamp at a higher lamp pillar (DEEPATHOON), closer to the Dargah area.

WHAT WAS ISSUES OR WHAT JUSTICE SWAMINATHAN ORDER

Rule by Justice G.R. Swaminathan

1.       The Upper Lamp-Pillar belongs to the temple area and can be used for the rituals.

2.       A limited group of devotees, escorted by CISF personnel, may ascend the hill to light the lamp

3.       The Rituals does not infringe the religious rights of the Muslim community or the Dargah management.

4.       Allowing the lamp lighting was “Symbolic but necessary to uphold lawful rights over the property.

This order overturned previous practice and was seen by critics as upsetting the delicate religious equilibrium of the sites.

IMMEDIATE REACTION

1.       The Tension triggered by the High Court decision spilled over into the Supreme Court on Friday morning, Shortly after a lawyer appearing for Madurai District Collector K.J. Praveen Kumar and police Chief J. Loganatham , IPS, Urged the Chief Justice to list the petition.

2.       The petition was filed Late on December 4,a few hours after the High Court passed it’s order.

3.       The mentioning took an adversarial tone as advocate P.V. Yogeswaran for the Respondent, intervene strongly accusing the state of playing drama in the Supreme court. “The State is only trying to convey to the High Court that it has moved the Supreme Court”. Mr. Yogeswaran interjected.

4.       The State counsel said he was merely trying to get a listing in the case. The Chief Justice asked the lawyers to calm down, saying “It’s only 10:30 am in the morning”.

5.       The CJI there turned to the State Counsel and said non-committally, the pleas for listing would be considered in due course.

6.       The High Court had quashed the prohibitory orders imposed under section 163 of BNSS in THIRUPPARANKUNDRAM on Wednesday (December 3,2025). The Judge then Directed that the lamp be lit on Thursday (December 4,2025) evening .

WHY ESCALATION HAPPEN

STATE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1.       The Tamil Nadu government refused to implement the order, citing: -

A.      Potential Law and order breakdown

B.      Protests and rising tension around the site.

2.       The Government moved a petition Challenging in the order before a division and later approached the Supreme court.

PUBLIC AND PROFESSIONAL BACKLASH

1.       Lawyer’s group protest and demanding Judge’s resignation.

2.       Political parties accused biased on Judgement.

3.       BJP criticised the move to impeachment the Judge as politically shameful.

COMMUNAL SENSITIVITY

The presence of a temple and dargah on the same hill has historically demanded careful management.

Any Judicial order perceived as favouring one side risks significant tension.

JUDICAL INDEPENDENCE VS POLITICAL CRITIQUE –

1.       Supporters of impeachment argue the judge acted in a politically or ideologically coloured manner.

2.       Opponents say impeachment over a judicial order threatens judicial independence.

LEGAL PROFESSIONAL CONCERNS

Some bar associations claimed that :-

1.       The judgment was hurried.

2.       Procedurally questionable.

3.       Disregarding settled precedent .

CORE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JUSTICE SWAMINATHAN FOR IMPEACHMENT ARE-

The Notice accuses the judge of:-

1.       Undermining judicial impartiality and transparency.

2.       Showing under favour to a particular senior advocate and lawyers of a specific community

3.       Deciding the lamp-lighting case in a way influenced by political ideology.

4.       Violating the secular principal of the constitution.

These are framed as “proved mis-behaviour”- the constitutional ground for impeaching a High Court Judge.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT –

Awaiting Speaker Om Birla’s Decision-

1.       Reject-Ending of Impeachment.

2.       Accept-Triggering the inquiry committee.

If accepted what will be Out come

1.       Admission+Inquiry -Long Investigation process begins.

2.       Committee finds no wrong doing -Judge is cleared.

3.       Committee finds mis-behaviour but Parliament fails to pass majority -Judge remains in Office.

4.       All steps succeed – Then Judge is formally Removed (But it’s rare condition which is not happen till now in India).

5.       Supreme court -Waiting for Supreme court Action they accept the petition or not if accepted then what is their point of view over this judgement.