A reckless impeachment proposal that will haunt the Congress more than the DMK

 The controversy surrounding the Madras High Court’s lamp-lighting order near the Subramanya temple which also is in the vicinity of a  dargah at Thirupparankundram hill in Madurai district, Tamil Nadu should have remained what it originally was: a contested judicial decision, capable of correction through appeals and constitutional process. Instead, it has been converted into a political confrontation with the judiciary—one that may ultimately damage the Congress far more than the DMK.

The DMK government’s aggressive response to Justice G.R. Swaminathan’s order, including pushing impeachment rhetoric, is constitutionally indefensible. The party has long operated within an ideological framework that views Hindu religious assertion with scepticism and is prepared to absorb accusations of being anti-Hindu. For the DMK, such confrontations are not electoral poison; they are part of its political grammar.

The Congress Party, however, is in an entirely different position.

By choosing to align with the DMK on an impeachment move against a sitting High Court judge over a judicial order, Congress has imported DMK’s confrontational politics without its ideological insulation. This decision has immediate resonance in Karnataka, where Congress governs and where cultural and religious sensitivities are electorally decisive.

Three Karnataka Congress MPs—Prabha Mallikarjun of Davanagere, Kumar Nayak of Raichur, and Shreyas Patel of Hassan—have  signed the impeachment petition. Their involvement ensures that this controversy will not remain a distant Tamil Nadu issue for Karnataka voters. It will be debated locally, politically, and emotionally. These MPs, and the party they represent, will now have to answer a simple but damaging question: why did Congress support action against a judge for a decision that enabled a Hindu religious practice?

Constitutionally, the move is deeply flawed. Impeachment is meant for proven misbehaviour or incapacity of a sitting judge, not for controversial interpretations of law. Governments dissatisfied with judicial orders have clear remedies—appeals to a Division Bench or the Supreme Court. By bypassing these routes and targeting the judge himself, the DMK and its allies have lowered the threshold for political intimidation of the judiciary. That precedent is dangerous, regardless of ideology.

Politically, the risk is asymmetric. The BJP will frame the issue bluntly, portraying Congress as hostile to Hindu traditions. The debate on this at the national level has already begun. In Karnataka—where the Congress government already faces criticism over perceived anti-Hindu and pro-minority measures—the lamp controversy becomes an additional weapon in the opposition’s arsenal.

There is also a looming legal boomerang. If higher courts later set aside the order but censure the Tamil Nadu government for executive overreach, the embarrassment will be profound. DMK may weather it. Congress will struggle to explain why it chose theatrics over constitutional wisdom.

Disagreeing with judges is democratic. Threatening them for their judgments is not. By failing to weigh these consequences, Congress has stepped into a trap—one that could leave lasting political scars, especially in states like Karnataka where it has far more to lose than to gain.