Indian judge invokes Hindu majoritarian ideology
Remarks by Madras High Court judge raise alarms over judicial neutrality, secularism and growing Hindu majoritarian influence within India’s courts
NEW DELHI, India (MNTV) — A senior judge in India has publicly declared allegiance to a Hindu majoritarian belief system, reigniting concern over judicial independence in the world’s largest democracy at a time when courts are increasingly viewed as vulnerable to ideological capture.
Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madras High Court said at a public event in Chennai that he intended to keep “Sanatana Dharma” at the center of his remaining years in judicial service, according to legal news outlet Bar and Bench. The remarks were made during a function organized by the Dara Foundation.
While framed by the judge as a personal conviction, the statement has triggered sharp backlash because Sanatana Dharma, in contemporary political usage, is widely understood by scholars and rights advocates as a religious-ideological framework associated with Hindu majoritarianism.
Analysts argue that it is frequently mobilized to legitimize caste hierarchy, social exclusion and the fusion of religion with state authority — placing it in direct tension with constitutional principles of secularism and equality before law.
Justice Swaminathan has drawn sustained controversy in recent months for judicial observations and public comments on caste, religion, social justice and Dravidian politics. Dalit groups, civil society organizations and opposition leaders have accused him of advancing Brahminical and majoritarian viewpoints incompatible with India’s constitutional commitment to non-discrimination.
Concerns over his conduct were formally raised last year when opposition members of parliament wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and then Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, alleging that the judge showed preferential treatment toward advocates from dominant caste backgrounds and those aligned with Hindu right-wing ideologies.
Political reactions to the remarks were swift. Saravanan Annadurai, a spokesperson for the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the ruling party in the state of Tamil Nadu, questioned whether a judge would be allowed to remain in office if he openly cited a religious doctrine as a guiding principle over the Constitution, calling it a fundamental violation of the judicial oath.
Legal commentators and rights advocates say the issue extends beyond one individual. They argue that public endorsement of Hindu majoritarian ideology by a constitutional authority reflects a broader pattern in which elements of India’s judiciary appear increasingly aligned with dominant religious nationalism, raising doubts about impartiality in cases involving minorities, dissent and civil liberties.
Sanatana Dharma has long been challenged by anti-caste movements for its historical role in normalizing Brahminical supremacy, patriarchal norms and systemic discrimination. In the current political climate, Observers say the term is frequently deployed to brand opponents as “anti-Hindu,” suppress dissent and legitimize the erosion of institutional secularism — making its invocation by a sitting judge particularly contentious.
Analysts warn that when members of the judiciary publicly signal ideological loyalty to majoritarian belief systems, it undermines public confidence in courts as neutral arbiters and raises serious questions about the durability of constitutional safeguards in India’s justice system.
Have Your Say!
Have you been affected by the issues raised in this story? Please share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@soundvision.com.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a Muslim Network TV’s representative. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
Tweet: @MuslimNetworkTV
We must take charge of our narrative. Research indicates that 92% of their Muslim coverage is negative. Help us change that.
