New Delhi: The Madras high court bench comprising two judges has summoned an advocate who had alleged communal and caste bias by one of the two judges and opined that the allegations constitute criminal contempt of court.LiveLaw has reported that a bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice K. Rajasekar has summoned advocate S Vanchinathan to appear before it in person.The bench has sent him the summons in writing, asking him to respond by 1.15 pm of July 28. The bench’s claim is that Vanchinathan has “refused to answer” the question posed to him during a case – as to whether he continued to believe that Justice Swaminathan was casteist in the discharge of his judicial duties.LiveLaw reports that when the court questioned him on whether he stood by his stand, Vanchinathan said that he was no longer the counsel for the party in the case the bench was hearing and had returned the papers. The report notes that the bench, however, remarked that his disassociation from the case could not lead to closure of the action initiated by the bench.The bench also told Vanchinathan that he had been previously suspended by the Bar Council of India on the ground that “his conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer.”The LiveLaw report also added that the court also claimed that “it was one thing to criticise a judgment of the court but another to cast aspersions on a judge.”Letter to CJIVanchinathan is the Tamil Nadu coordinator of the People’s Rights Protection Centre, which identifies as a public-spirited organisation dedicated to advancing and protecting civil liberties, fundamental rights, and social justice. The organisation had written to the Supreme Court judges and the Chief Justice of India with detailed allegations on Swaminathan’s conduct. The Wire has seen the letter.” This representation seeks Your Lordships’ attention to certain patterns of conduct by Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan, currently serving at the Madras High Court, which raise serious questions regarding impartiality, transparency, and the secular functioning of the judiciary,” the letter had said.Listing 15 such cases, the Centre notes in the letter how Swaminathan is perceived to have consistently prioritised listings and time slots for a specific group of advocates, particularly those from the Brahmin community and those aligned with right-wing ideologies.“This pattern has been observed by multiple members of the Bar and is not an isolated occurrence. The following table illustrates this pattern, detailing preferential treatment given to Mr. M. Sricharan Rangarajan, Senior Advocate from the Brahmin community, who frequently appeared before His Lordship between April and July 2024. These cases were often assigned advantageous time slots, bypassing other matters a of equal or greater urgency,” they wrote.The centre wrote that it was concerned that, within a short period (April to July 2024), Swaminathan issued “an unusually high number of favorable orders” in cases argued by Sricharan Rangarajan.“Additionally, His Lordship is perceived to extend preferential treatment to other advocates from the Brahmin community, creating an impression that engaging such advocates increases the likelihood of favorable orders. For instance, Mr. K. Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India at the Madurai Bench, also from the Brahmin community, reportedly receives similar prioritization. Though not a Senior Advocate, he is frequently engaged to secure favorable outcomes,” the letter says.The letter also notes the several rulings and observations by Swaminathan reflect a discernible ideological leaning toward right-wing political philosophy, an inconsistent approach in quashing petitions along with politically motivated commentary.In a 2022 judgement in a petition seeking a passport renewal, Swaminathan said, “I compliment Shri K. Annamalai, the State Bharatiya Janata Party President, for having taken up the cause. He has played the role of a watchdog in a democracy. But for him, the matter would not have comе to light.”The letter noted that this praise for a leader of a political party was unrelated to the case and also not incidental or made during oral observations, but “was recorded as part of the Judgment, thus giving it the weight of judicial endorsement.”The letter noted how in an April 2024 book release function alongside right-wing political activists, including BJP’s H. Raja and Rangaraj Pandey, Swaminathan “mocked the “Dravidian model” of governance, impersonated former chief minister M. Karunanidhi,and criticised a former Tamil Nadu Minister for not knowing Kanchi Shankaracharya.”The 14-page letter notes how the incidents essayed in it collectively “suggest a pattern of judicial conduct that undermines impartiality and neutrality. Whether through selective case handling, ideological commentary, or procedural irregularities, Honble Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan’s actions blur the line between judicial function and ideological activism.”