A group of 56 former judges from the Supreme Court and various High Courts has strongly denounced the impeachment notice issued against Madras High Court Judge Justice G.R. Swaminathan, calling the move “anti-democratic” and a direct attempt to undermine judicial independence. The former judges issued a joint public statement expressing concern over what they described as a growing pattern of political pressure being used to influence the judiciary.

The impeachment notice was submitted earlier this week by over 100 MPs from the INDIA bloc, including senior leaders such as Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, and Akhilesh Yadav. The motion accuses Justice Swaminathan of alleged judicial bias and cites several of his past orders, including those related to religious and cultural matters.

Reacting sharply to the development, the retired judges said the move represents a “brazen attempt to browbeat judges who do not fall in line with ideological and political expectations.” In their statement titled “Statement of Solidarity & Call to Protect Independence of Judiciary,” they noted, “We take serious exception to the attempt being made by certain Members of Parliament to impeach Hon’ble Justice G.R. Swaminathan. This is a brazen attempt to intimidate judges who rule without political favour.”

The group emphasised that the charges presented in the impeachment notice did not meet the very high constitutional threshold required for such an action. “Even if the accusations are taken at face value, they are wholly inadequate to justify resorting to such a rare and serious measure,” the statement said. It further warned that misusing impeachment proceedings as a tool of political retaliation “cuts at the very roots of our democracy and the independence of the judiciary.”

The impeachment push comes primarily in response to Justice Swaminathan’s order relating to the lighting of a traditional lamp at the Thirupparankundram Subramaniaswamy temple in Tamil Nadu. Opposition MPs claimed the ruling showed “religious bias” and alleged the judge had acted in ways inconsistent with secular principles. DMK MP Kanimozhi claimed that several of the judge’s orders had “made people lose faith and confidence in the judicial system.”

However, former judges argued that such criticisms are subjective and cannot form the basis of impeachment. They recalled earlier instances in Indian history, including during the Emergency, when political interference weakened public trust in the judiciary. The statement described these past examples as reminders of why constitutional safeguards must be protected.

The debate has drawn strong reactions from civil society as well. Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu criticised the impeachment notice, calling it “blatant intimidation of judges” and warning that such pressures could discourage judges from making independent decisions. Political voices outside the INDIA bloc, including the AIADMK, also opposed the motion and demanded “zero political interference in the judiciary.”

Under India’s Constitution, impeachment of a High Court or Supreme Court judge requires a multi-stage parliamentary process, with a detailed inquiry and a special majority in both Houses. Legal experts note that successful impeachments are extremely rare and require clear evidence of serious misconduct, a standard they say has not been met in this case.

For now, the controversy has sparked nationwide debate about the balance between judicial accountability and judicial independence. Supporters of the impeachment motion argue that the judiciary must be held responsible for biased decisions, while critics maintain that political displeasure cannot become grounds for removing judges.As Parliament prepares to examine the motion, the strong opposition from former judges has added pressure on lawmakers to reconsider the consequences of pursuing such an unprecedented step. The incident has also renewed discussions on the need to protect the judiciary from political influence, ensuring that judges can deliver rulings without fear of retaliation. The statement by the 56 former judges concludes with a firm reminder: “Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our democracy. Any attempt to weaken it is an attempt to weaken the nation itself.”