MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on Thursday sentenced YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar to six months simple imprisonment for his disparaging remarks against the judiciary. He would be lodged in Madurai Central Prison.
Issuing notice to social media platforms namely Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, a Special Bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and B Pugalendhi further directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to ensure that the offending interviews and articles of Shankar are taken down forthwith.
The Bench passed the order in the suo moto contempt proceedings initiated against Shankar for his statement that ‘The entire higher judiciary is riddled with corruption’, in his interview to a YouTube channel on July 22 this year. Appearing before the Court on Thursday morning, Shankar submitted an explanation to the above statement and similar other comments made by him, for which he was facing the contempt charges. He emphasized that his comments have been taken out of context and he only wished to highlight the under-representation of the suppressed classes and the over-representation of Brahmins in the higher judiciary. He also argued that there should be transparency in appointment of judges.
However, the judges observed that it is criminal contempt of the highest degree to portray the entire institution of higher judiciary as corrupt. In the 46-page order, the judges said, “The contemnor would be well within his rights to highlight specific instances of corruption. Of course, they must be backed by materials. He cannot tar the entire institution with a single brush.” They also criticised Shankar for making generalised allegations against district judges. “It is the use of general and sweeping expressions that is offensive and falls foul of law. On the other hand, making specific allegations based on prima facie evidence and in good faith would definitely fall within the ambit of the right to freedom of speech and expression,” the judges said.
The Bench also addressed the allegation made by Shankar in open court that the proceedings were initiated only because one of the judges (Justice Swaminathan) felt offended by the YouTuber’s criticism of some of his judgments. “We are fully conscious that no exception can be taken to fair criticism of one's judgments or judicial functioning. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. But this right is not absolute,” they observed. Moreover, Shankar did not submit any petition to recuse (challenge a judge as unqualified to hear a case because of potential conflict of interest) Justice Swaminathan from hearing the case, the judges pointed out. Shankar’s argument on the jurisdiction and maintainability of the proceedings were also rejected by the judges citing that the Bench was constituted to hear the contempt proceedings only by the order of the Chief Justice of Madras High Court.
Taking judicial notice of the fact that Shankar is a well known YouTuber who has thousands of followers, the judges echoed the apprehensions raised by senior counsel AL Somayaji, who represented the High Court Registry in the case, that Shankar’s comments might destroy public confidence in the institution of judiciary. They also noted that Shankar, being a suspended employee of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and receiving subsistence allowance from the government for the past 13 years, is governed by the Conduct Rules and yet he has been attacking all the three organs (legislative, executive and judiciary) of the State in a vicious manner. The judges said they would have closed the proceedings if Shankar had realized his mistake and apologised. But instead he is unrepentant and has reiterated h