The 'Grammar of Anarchy': Ambedkar’s Warning and the Peril of the Impeachment Notice

(The editorial argues that the INDIA bloc's impeachment notice against Justice Swaminathan weaponizes constitutional processes to punish judicial independence, risking democratic "anarchy" for electoral expediency.)

Tiruparangundram Lord Subramnya (Muruga) temple (Photo courtesy: Dinamalar) 

The Resurgence of an Ancient Warning

In his seminal speech to the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949, Dr B.R. Ambedkar issued a stern warning against the erosion of constitutional propriety: "Where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the 'Grammar of Anarchy' and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us." This profound caution appears increasingly relevant in the wake of the escalating standoff between the Tamil Nadu executive and the judiciary. On 9 December 2025, in a move that has sent ripples through the legal fraternity, 107 MPs of the INDIA bloc submitted a formal impeachment notice to the Lok Sabha Speaker against Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court. This retaliatory strike followed a judgment permitting the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam on the ancient Deepathoon (stone pillar) on Thiruparankundram hill—an order that was ignored by the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government but subsequently upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court.

INDIA Bloc presenting Impeachment Notice to Hon’ble Speaker of Lok Sabha

 From Administrative Defiance to Constitutional Crisis

The administrative defiance observed in this case suggests a troubling shift from the ‘Grammar of Law’ to the ‘Grammar of Anarchy’. Despite the Division Bench’s affirmation and the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant an immediate stay, the State Government chose to bypass implementation, citing potential communal unrest as a convenient shield. In an apparent haste to satisfy a minority vote bank, the ruling dispensation and the signatory MPs have bypassed established legal recourse in favour of a constitutional "nuclear option." By weaponising the impeachment process against a judge for a specific verdict—before the highest court in the land has even had its final say—the political establishment risks setting a perilous precedent, where judicial independence is sacrificed at the altar of electoral expediency.

The fallout on the ground, however, reveals a more disturbing trend. Although Justice Swaminathan’s judgment was upheld by a superior Bench of two judges, the discourse from the ruling party’s supporters has descended into personal vitriol, exclusively targeting Justice Swaminathan for his Brahmin identity.  This narrow, caste-based defamation ignores the legal merits of an order that merely directed the lighting of a lamp on the sacred Karthigai day, once a year, on the Deepathoon.

Interestingly, the political attempt to project this as a "protection of minority rights" has backfired. In conversations with PreSense, many members of the Muslim community expressed disagreement with the impeachment, viewing it as an unnecessary escalation that risks their own social standing. Even within the DMK’s own ranks, workers privately admit that the government has needlessly elevated a local ritual into a national controversy, inadvertently consolidating Hindu sentiment against the party.

This sense of alienation is further compounded by the perceived asymmetry in the State’s cultural engagement. While the Chief Minister and senior leaders are conspicuous by their absence in greeting Hindus on major festivals like Deepavali or Vinayaga Chaturthi, they are frequent participants in Iftar or Christmas gatherings—a discrepancy often punctuated by the ridicule of Hindu traditions. Furthermore, the silence of the opposition on the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh, contrasted with their outcry over stray incidents at home, has not gone unnoticed. The depth of this internal conflict was most tragically illustrated by a DMK worker Poorna Chandran (31) of Madurai, who committed self-immolation in protest against his own government's refusal to light the lamp. Silently but surely, these actions are causing significant embarrassment to the Muslim community and creating a potent wave of consolidation among Hindu voters.

Constitutional Safeguards vs Political Retribution

Under Articles 124(4) and 218 of the Constitution of India, the removal of a High Court judge is a rigorous process designed to protect judicial independence. A judge can only be impeached on the grounds of "proven misbehaviour" or "incapacity," typically involving grave allegations of proved corruption or mental infirmity. Historically, this "nuclear option" has been reserved for instances of moral turpitude.

However, the current motion appears to break new ground by targeting a judge primarily for a specific judicial pronouncement; a move that risks transforming a legal disagreement into a tool for political retribution. By initiating this process before exhausting the judicial hierarchy, the signatories have arguably ignored the spirit of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which was never intended to facilitate the vetting of verdicts through the lens of vote-bank politics.

Ideological Contradictions and Internal Friction

Strangely, the presence of Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi during the submission of the notice has sent a controversial message across the nation, with critics viewing it as an endorsement of an anti-Hindu narrative. Within the Congress party itself, the move has triggered internal friction.

Several senior leaders, speaking on condition of anonymity to PreSense, expressed shock and suggested that the central leadership was "misled into a trap" by regional allies. They pointed to the electoral drubbing the party faced in various States following their perceived support for the "Eradicate Sanatana Dharma" rhetoric, fearing that this latest stance could further alienate the majority community.

Equally baffling is the involvement of the Shiv Sena (UBT). A party whose very foundation rests on the promotion of Hindu Dharma has now, paradoxically, lent its signature to a motion against a judge whose order merely permitted the lighting of a lamp on a hill dedicated to Lord Muruga. This ideological pivot highlights the extent to which traditional values are being sacrificed at the altar of political survival. It suggests that for the sake of the INDIA bloc's cohesion, even parties claiming to champion Hindu interests are willing to penalise the judiciary for upholding a centuries-old religious tradition at Thiruparankundram. 

A Legacy of Dedication: The Measure of the Man

Justice G R Swaminthan

The irony of the impeachment motion becomes even more stark when one examines the professional track record of Justice G.R. Swaminathan. Since his elevation to the Bench in 2017, he has achieved the extraordinary feat of disposing of approximately 1.20 lakh cases, a testament to his staggering work ethic.

Speaking to PreSense, Dr S.K. Kharventhan, former Congress MP and former Chairman of the Bar Council of India, expressed profound admiration for the judge’s commitment. Recalling a recent encounter, Dr Kharventhan noted that when he met the Justice in his chambers on a Sunday evening, he found him diligently dictating judgments. When asked why he was working on a public holiday, Justice Swaminathan simply remarked, "I am paid a salary for Sundays too." This level of integrity and neutrality is even echoed by several Congress leaders who, despite their party's official stance, privately laud his unwavering dedication. By targeting such a prolific and committed member of the judiciary over a single contentious ruling, the political class risks demoralising the very institution meant to safeguard the citizens' rights.

A Threat to Judicial Sovereignty and Global Standing

The repercussions of this motion extend far beyond the borders of Tamil Nadu, threatening to undermine the very bedrock of our democracy. In an unprecedented show of solidarity, 92 retired judges of the Supreme Court and various High Courts have submitted a formal representation to the Speaker, cautioning that weaponising impeachment against a judge for a specific verdict is a "brazen attempt to browbeat the judiciary."

Speaking to PreSense, Justice Dr Vallinayagam, former Judge of the Karnataka High Court, warned that if the Speaker permits such motions based merely on judicial disagreement, it will trigger "chaos and confusion," effectively stripping judges of the fearlessness required to uphold the law. India’s global reputation as a vibrant democracy rests largely on its independent judiciary; any perception that the bench is being intimidated by the executive could diminish our international standing. Notably, while several impeachment motions have been initiated since Independence, none have ever been passed by Parliament, reflecting the historical understanding that this is a safeguard for justice, not a political tool for expressing dissatisfaction.

Conclusion: Returning to the Rule of Law

Ultimately, this standoff serves as a stark reminder of Dr Ambedkar’s warning to eschew the "Grammar of Anarchy" in favour of constitutional methods. For the sake of short-term electoral gains, political parties are venturing into dangerous territory that may alienate even the very minority communities they seek to woo. Secularism in the Indian context must mean the equitable protection of all faiths and traditions—including the lighting of a sacred lamp—rather than the selective suppression of one to appease another.

When the judiciary remains the last resort for the common man, its independence must be guarded with a religious zeal. We must move away from the toxic culture of vote-bank politics and return to a system where judicial orders are contested through appeals in the Supreme Court, not through threats in the Parliament. Only by respecting the Rule of Law over the whims of political expediency can we ensure that the lamp of justice remains lit for every Indian citizen.

Source: This is an editorial published in the Dec 2025 edition of Presense