“Publicity Interest Litigation”: Madras High Court Rejects Plea To Restrain Retired Judges From Issuing Public Letters/ Statements

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan called the plea a “publicity interest litigation” and remarked that judges are not affected by such statements made against them. The court thus dismissed the plea and imposed cost.

“You may feel that judges are influenced, judges are not influenced by any of this. It's all just a publicity interest. All these matters will be looked into judicially. You don't have to poke your nose in all this,” the court remarked orally.

The plea was filed in light of the recent letter written by retired judges of the Madras High Court to sitting judge Justice GR Swaminathan, after the latter called for an explanation from a lawyer for raising caste bias allegation against the judge.

A division bench, headed by Justice Swaminathan, had summoned Advocate Vanchinathan to explain if he stood by his statement that one of the judges of the bench (Justice Swaminathan) was exhibiting caste and communal bias. After the action was initiated, eight retired judges of the High Court had made an 'appeal', signed by Retd. Justice K Chandru, to the bench, to give up any action taken and remarked that the action against Vanchinathan was premature. The retired judges remarked that the bench should have awaited CJI's decision on the complaint given by Vanchinathan.

While placing the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate action, Justice Swaminathan remarked that it was “unfortunate” that some judges were making remarks against the action.

The present plea, in which Justice Chandru had also been made a party, sought to forbid retired judges from making such statements.

Advocate GS Mani, appearing for the petitioner, said that the whole issue was being circulated in news channels and social media along with a picture of the judge. He contended that the statements made were deliberately damaging the reputation of the judges, who were passing judicial orders. He further submitted that if any person was aggrieved by the judicial orders passed by the court, they could challenge the order instead of making a personal attack on the judges.

Case Title: Varaaki v. The Registrar General and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 273

Case No: WP No: 30223 of 2025