Tamil Nadu AG Refuses Consent To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Against Former Judge For Remarks On Justice GR Swaminathan

Rangarajan Narasimhan had filed a consent petition with the Advocate General seeking permission for initiating contempt proceedings under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.

According to Rangarajan, the former judge had given two interviews, on 4^th December 2025 and 6^th December 2025 where he had made remarks against the sitting judge. The point for determination was whether the statements made by the retired judge amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act.

The AG noted that when those who have been holding constitutional posts are accused of criminal contempt, more care must be taken by the sanctioning authority. The AG recalled an identical situation where a sanction was sought to initiate contempt proceedings against former judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Markandey Katju, for statements made by him against the judiciary.

The AG noted that in that case, the Solicitor General had decided to drop the proceedings, since he felt it would be inappropriate and inexpedient to dwell on the issue as it related to a former judge of the Supreme Court.

The AG noted that while eminent persons should exercise restraint in their comments about the functioning of the judiciary, the issue should also be considered from the context of freedom of speech and expression.

“While I believe that eminent persons, particularly those who have been in high constitutional posts, need to be restrained in their comments about the functioning of the judiciary or of any particular judge, the same has also to be viewed in the context of freedom of speech and expression, and in particular, the right of criticism,” AG wrote.

The AG added that though he did not approve of the views made by the former judge, he deemed it fit to drop the proceedings, without going into the merits. The AG left it open to Narasimhan to pursue the matter, if he so desires, by approaching the Madras High Court directly, as permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act.

“I have seen the statements made, and I may state that I do not personally concur or even approve of the views expressed therein. Since the statements have been made by a retired judge of the High Court who knows his responsibility, without expressing any opinion on whether his comments amounted to bringing the institution to disrepute, or whether the same attribute motives to a conduct of a judge, exercising my judicial discretion, I deem it fit to drop these proceedings, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue this matter if he so desires by moving the Hon'ble madras High Court directly, as is permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971,” AG said.