The Aryavarth Express
Chennai (Tamil Nadu):
Senior Advocate M. Sricharan Rangarajan has issued a strong rebuttal to the allegations mentioned in an impeachment motion filed against Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court. The motion—signed by more than 100 MPs—accuses the judge of bias and claims he favoured select lawyers, including Rangarajan, whose name he says was wrongly included.
Rangarajan dismisses the accusations as misinformed and misleading, stating that he has no connection to the Deepathoon (Stone Lamp Pillar) case, which is believed to have triggered the complaint. He also notes that an informal petition containing similar claims had circulated online earlier, casting doubts on the timing and intent behind the impeachment effort.
Countering allegations of preferential treatment based on his belonging to a “particular community,” he cites clear statistics:
In the three-month period questioned, Justice Swaminathan disposed of over 3,000 cases, only 14 of which involved him.
Since 2017, the judge has delivered rulings in more than one lakh cases, making it unreasonable, he argues, to select a handful to imply bias.
Rangarajan further points out basic factual errors in the motion—incorrect case numbers, wrong timings and even mixing up matters heard by different benches—arguing that such mistakes undermine the credibility of the allegations. He adds that many other senior lawyers from various communities appear before the judge far more frequently and have had significantly more favourable orders, yet they have not been named.
Calling himself a “soft target,” he suggests the accusations aim to indirectly attack the judge through him. He expresses concern that the broader silence within the legal fraternity enables baseless charges to gain traction.
Highlighting an irony, he notes that some MPs who signed the motion have previously engaged him as their counsel—and in at least one instance, Justice Swaminathan ruled in their favour. He questions whether such orders could also be labelled “favouritism” or are simply the natural outcome of judicial scrutiny.
Reflecting on his own career—from international academic opportunities to public service, ultimately becoming the youngest Senior Advocate designated by the Madras High Court—Rangarajan says the allegations strike at the dignity of both his personal integrity and the legal profession as a whole.
He concludes by urging fellow lawyers to speak out against unfounded accusations, warning that silence only fuels such attacks. Anchored by the values instilled by his mentors and late father, he says he remains committed to truth and composure in the face of controversy.
