'Pseudo secularism': Pawan Kalyan invokes Sabarimala verdict to question DMK's impeachment push against Madras HC judge

According to Kalyan, Justice Swaminathan is being targeted simply for upholding a long-standing ritual performed on land legally recognised as belonging to a Hindu religious institution.

The controversy over the Madras High Court order permitting Hindu devotees to light a traditional lamp near a pillar located close to a dargah in Tamil Nadu continues to intensify. Even as the ruling DMK government has moved the Supreme Court challenging the order, strong criticism is emerging from neighbouring Andhra Pradesh.

A day after senior DMK leaders led by Kanimozhi submitted an impeachment notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla - seeking the removal of Madras High Court Judge G.R. Swaminathan with signatures from over 120 MPs - Andhra Pradesh Minister Pawan Kalyan publicly attacked the Tamil Nadu government's "pseudo secularism."

*Threatening Judiciary in the name of Pseudo Secularism*

When a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court delivered the Sabarimala judgment overturning a centuries-old, deeply cherished custom regarding entry into one of the most sacred Hindu sites and triggering massive social… https://t.co/VeenvakL0B — Pawan Kalyan (@PawanKalyan) December 9, 2025

In a detailed post on X, Kalyan invoked the Sabarimala verdict to argue that the move to impeach Justice Swaminathan represented "selective outrage" rather than genuine judicial oversight.

Justice Swaminathan, in his 1 December order, directed the Arulmighu Subramania Swamy temple authorities to ensure that a lamp is lit at the deepathoon (pillar) located on the Thiruparankundram hillock in Madurai. The site stands near a dargah, but the judge clarified that lighting the lamp would not infringe upon the rights of the neighbouring Muslim community.

When the order was not implemented, the judge issued another directive on 3 December allowing devotees themselves to light the lamp and instructing the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to provide security. The DMK-led state government subsequently approached the Supreme Court.

Kalyan accused the INDIA bloc MPs of "weaponising the Constitution" to intimidate the judiciary. "Over 120 MPs have called for the impeachment of a judge for a ruling that merely upholds the right to practice the Hindu faith. This is not judicial accountability; this is blatant political intimidation," he wrote.

Citing past instances, he argued that no such political action was taken when the Supreme Court's Sabarimala judgment triggered widespread unrest. "When the constitutional bench overturned a centuries-old custom at Sabarimala and protests erupted across Kerala, no judge was impeached," he stated.

He also referred to a past remark by a former Chief Justice of India directed at a devotee of Lord Vishnu, noting that despite the controversial comment, no impeachment motion was considered.

According to Kalyan, Justice Swaminathan is being targeted simply for upholding a long-standing ritual performed on land legally recognised as belonging to a Hindu religious institution. "A judge can only be impeached for proven misbehaviour or incapacity. Neither applies here," he asserted.

Kalyan further argued that practicing Hindu rituals is a constitutional right and that secularism "is a two-way street" requiring equal respect for all faiths, including Hinduism. He reiterated his call for establishing a Sanatana Dharma Rakshana Board to allow devotees to manage temple affairs without political interference or pressure on the judiciary.

On 28 September 2018, the Supreme Court, in a 4:1 majority ruling, struck down the ban on women of all ages entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, calling it unconstitutional and discriminatory under Articles 14, 15, and 25.

The majority held that Sabarimala devotees did not constitute a separate religious denomination entitled to exclude women and declared Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules invalid. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, arguing that courts should not intervene in what communities consider essential religious practices.

In November 2019, a five-judge bench referred review petitions to a larger seven-judge bench to examine broader questions related to religious freedom and essential practices. The original verdict technically remains in force, but implementation has been stalled amid continued protests. As of 2025, the review is still pending.