‘You are a comedy piece’: Courtroom drama between Madras High Court judge, advocate who accused him of casteism
A heated courtroom exchange between Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Advocate S. Vanchinathan has ignited a national debate. Their confrontation, filled with sharp accusations and strong reactions, has triggered discussions on judicial conduct, free speech, and courtroom ethics.
Background: A Longstanding Conflict Comes to Light
The conflict between the two didn’t begin recently. For years, Advocate Vanchinathan has criticized Justice Swaminathan. He claims the judge exhibits caste and ideological bias. Notably, he expressed these views both in public interviews and written petitions.
In early 2025, Vanchinathan submitted a formal complaint to the Chief Justice of India. He alleged that Justice Swaminathan had shown prejudice in handling cases involving marginalized communities. Therefore, he requested an internal inquiry to address the issue impartially.
July 28 Hearing: The Flashpoint Moment
On July 28, 2025, the dispute erupted in open court. Justice Swaminathan, rather than stepping aside, chose to hear the case himself. He directly asked Vanchinathan whether he still stood by his earlier accusations.
However, Vanchinathan refused to answer verbally. Instead, he insisted on responding in writing. That request triggered a scathing response from the bench.
“You are a comedy piece,” Justice Swaminathan said. “I don’t know who called you revolutionary. You are all comedy pieces.”
His remark stunned the courtroom. It quickly became the focal point of legal and media discussions across the country. The judge went on to accuse Vanchinathan of leading a campaign to undermine public trust in the judiciary.
Referral to the Chief Justice
Despite the tense exchange, the court avoided making an immediate decision. Instead, the bench referred the case to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. By doing so, it handed the matter to a higher authority, ensuring a more neutral evaluation.
This move avoided a potential conflict of interest. After all, the judge under scrutiny shouldn’t preside over a case involving allegations against himself.
Mixed Reactions from the Legal Community
The legal fraternity responded with mixed opinions. A group of retired judges, including Justice K. Chandru, urged the court to avoid initiating contempt proceedings. They pointed to the “Ravichandran Iyer” precedent, which advises an internal process before treating such allegations as contempt.
On the other hand, many lawyers supported the judge’s stance. They believe that public accusations of caste bias, especially without substantial evidence, risk damaging the judiciary’s credibility. Moreover, some viewed Vanchinathan’s refusal to answer orally as an attempt to delay or sidestep accountability.
Caste and the Judiciary: A Deeper Concern
This case has also reignited discussions about caste imbalance within the Indian judiciary. Although the Constitution promotes equality and representation, higher courts remain dominated by upper-caste judges. The representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and OBCs remains alarmingly low.
As a result, any allegation of caste bias carries weight. However, such claims must be raised responsibly and through proper legal channels. Otherwise, they risk undermining serious conversations about systemic inequality.
Free Speech Meets Judicial Decorum
Justice Swaminathan has often defended free speech. In fact, he once ruled that people have a “right to be funny” when dismissing charges against a satirical Facebook post. Ironically, his own comment calling an advocate a “comedy piece” has now stirred criticism.
Judges are expected to remain composed, even in emotionally charged situations. While frustration is understandable, harsh words from the bench can appear personal or inappropriate.
Still, many sympathize with the judge. They argue that repeated, unsubstantiated allegations can weaken the authority of the courts. Therefore, the judiciary must draw a line between fair criticism and deliberate defamation.
What Comes Next?
Now that the matter lies with the Chief Justice, the next steps will be closely watched. The legal system must demonstrate fairness and transparency. If the Chief Justice decides to initiate an inquiry, it may set a useful precedent for handling similar situations in the future.
At the same time, the case underlines the urgent need for better grievance mechanisms. Advocates should have a formal path to raise concerns without resorting to public campaigns. Judges, too, must be able to defend their integrity without compromising judicial dignity.
Conclusion
The confrontation between Justice Swaminathan and Advocate Vanchinathan is more than just a moment of courtroom drama. It reflects deeper tensions within India’s legal system—particularly around caste, accountability, and decorum.
As the legal process continues, both sides must recognize their roles in upholding trust in the judiciary. Advocates must use respectful and lawful channels to voice their concerns. Judges must respond with balance, fairness, and restraint.
Ultimately, this incident reminds us that justice isn’t just about laws and judgments. It’s also about how we speak, how we listen, and how we hold one another accountable—without letting dignity slip through the cracks.
