New Delhi: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday accused popular YouTuber Savukku Shankar of “outrageous character” who is “no stranger to contempt proceedings”.
The words of a person who has “ready ears of thousands” on social media will have the effect of “undermining the honor and prestige” of this institution, Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B. A bench of Pugalendhi said, as it had held Shankar guilty of contempt. To make allegations of corruption in the higher judiciary.
Quoting former Supreme Court judge, Justice VRkrishna Iyer, the bench said in its order: “Justice fails when judges quail. We do not offer quail. There are occasions when judges have to be firm and harsh. Taking away such provocations by saying that we have broad shoulders would be seen as a sign of weakness. contempt [a person found to be in contempt of court] Has shown himself to be an unrepentant character.”
The HC had registered a contempt case against Shankar after taking suo motu cognizance of his tweet dated 18 July 2022, in which Shankar suggested that a case against a fellow YouTuber would result in an outsider with whom Justice Swaminathan had reportedly met. However, the tweet did not name the alleged influencer.
Since these statements “questioned the judicial integrity” of the judges, a case was registered against Shankar in the HC. But that didn’t stop the suspended Tamil Nadu government official from targeting the judiciary.
Before the court could take up his case, Shankar, in a YouTube interview on July 22, narrowed the issue further by suggesting one of the two judges, “according to the HC’s ruling. [Justice Swaminathan] Could have met the priest of the temple he referred to in his tweet.
In the same interview, the judgment further stated, Shankar said that “the entire higher judiciary is plagued by corruption”.
“It does not require a forensic mind to conclude that they are prima facie [on the face of it] It is reprehensible they malign and ridicule the institution of the judiciary,” the bench ruled.
Read also: India bans 8 Pakistan YouTube channels for spreading ‘religious hatred, security lies’
‘Anti-corruption whistleblower’
As noted in the verdict, Shankar – a constable in Tamil Nadu’s Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, who is under suspension – is no stranger to contempt proceedings.
In June 2016, the HC took serious note of the fact that Shankar’s Website was registered in the name of an existing HC Judge, who was also designated as the admin of the portal. An investigation revealed that Shankar was paying for the service using his credit card.
A notice of contempt was issued to Shankar, but no action was taken in the last six years. “its [case’s] It appears that his stay in cold storage has made him more reprehensible, reckless and reprehensible,” recorded the judgment issued on Thursday.
From humble origins, Shankar is a self-styled whistleblower, activist and political commentator. Knowledgeable people say that he makes huge claims, often defames, but he is a good person at heart, not corrupt and talks about issues plaguing the society.
In the mid-1990s, after the death of his father (also a DVAC employee), Shankar joined the department as a low-level employee. Even while working with DVAC, he continued to file RTIs, claiming that he had exposed corruption scandals.
Shankar was arrested in April 2008 for leaking tapes of conversations between two IAS officers. The then Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu LK Tripathi and the then DVAC Director SK Upadhyay – against AIADMK chief J Jayalalithaa in a corruption case related to the purchase of their Kodanad property., Later an Additional Sessions Court at Chennai released Shankar was cleared of all charges in the case in 2017.
After suspension from DVAC, Shankar launched his own web portal.‘savukku.net’ in 2009, where he continued to present political analysis, commentary and investigation. The website was blocked by the HC in 2014 for “maligning and tarnishing the reputation of several people, including judges and police officers”.
His Twitter account was also suspended earlier this year, but that didn’t stop him from using an alternate account or being a regular on Tamil YouTube channels.
During one such appearance he remarked “The entire judiciary is plagued with corruption” on the Tamil YouTube channel ‘redpix‘ – this is what the HC has now found contempt of court.
what happened in hc
Shankar defended his statement during the contempt proceedings in the HC and, in an affidavit filed on September 15, even said that the alleged “statement fell from my mouth” during an hour-long conversation. He claimed that these words were part of a larger statement.
The affidavit read: “When taken out of its context and viewed in a standalone statement, it may appear that it could have been worded better. However, when heard in context And when the circumstances under which the conversation has taken place are fully looked into and when the before and after statements are seen, this Hon’ble Court will believe me when I say that the statement does not appear and the intention to show No disrespect to the Honorable Court nor to defame the Court.
Shankar said in his affidavit that the allegations were “extended from what was in the contempt notice” and that “the elaboration of the charges is unwarranted”. “I should know specifically what to answer and be given enough time to respond. If the goalpost keeps moving then I am at a loss,” he argued.
Shankar also denied the allegation that their conversation was abusive or slanderous. Rather, according to him, they were well-meaning and very important conversations.
But the court rejected Shankar’s explanation and, instead, saw it as “justification in making the accused statement”.
“nwhere he expressed his regret or remorse. He didn’t offer an apology at all. On the other hand, he insisted that he was justified in making the alleged statement. By reading the impugned statements one would come to the conclusion that they may bring down the prestige and dignity of the courts and judges,” the court said in its judgment.
It further noted that Shankar would be “within his rights to highlight specific instances of corruption”, provided they are “backed by material”, but he cannot “stain the entire institution with a single brush”.
“He must be crossing Lakshman Rekha By a long shot,” the verdict said.
The court expressed its opposition to Shankar making a general derogatory remark against the district judges, whom he alleged, “appoint good looking widows and utilize their services”.
“They simply mean that they are used for sexual gratification. During the course of the proceedings, the contemnor named a judicial officer and claimed that he was dismissed for the said misconduct. Though no material was placed before us. Whether the dismissal was linked to any sexual misconduct, we are of the clear view that the contempt could have best named the said officer in his interview and referred to material in support of his allegation,” the bench noted. .
It said that Shankar could not have used the usual expression to say that “some district judges have a weakness for women” and make broad allegations, which in the court’s view would be offensive and a violation of the law.
The court clarified whether he had made specific allegations on the basis of “prima facie evidence and goodwill, [it] would certainly come under the purview of the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Besides this, the court also took cognizance of Shankar’s statements against senior judges of the Supreme Court serving in the Madras HC. “The contribution of the Supreme Court is unparalleled. All its judges deserve the highest honours. Comments hurting his dignity cannot be made carelessly,” the HC said.
The bench also took into account Shankar’s following on social media. “His interview is watched by millions of viewers,” the bench said. The interviews portrayed the courts and judges in “the most barbaric terms”.
(Edited by Amritansh Arora)
Read also:IIT graduate for ‘Flying Beast’ – How Gaurav Taneja’s online fame led to his Noida Metro arrest