"Judges Can't Hide Behind Curtains": Madras HC Dismisses Savukku Shankar's Contempt Plea Against DMK Leader For Alleged Comments On Sitting Judge

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam noted that Justice Venkatesh himself had expressed that he did not want to initiate contempt proceedings. The court also noted that the Advocate General had refused to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Bharathi.

The court remarked that citizens were free to access and criticize the conduct of those holding public office. The bench added that transparency was the foundation of the judiciary and that judges could not hide behind curtains.

“Courts are public forums, their very foundation is transparency. Process of judicial making is strengthened by transparency and feedback. Judges can't shy away from criticism. Judiciary also have to public scrutiny. The Constitution and our conscience are our only guides. The judiciary can't be opaque and judges can't hide behind curtains”, the court said.

After Justice Venkatesh had initiated suo moto proceedings against the discharge/acquittal of ministers, Bharathi, while addressing the media, accused the judge of being partial, biased, and acting with a malafide intention and casting aspersions against the functioning of the court.

Shankar argued that the comments made by Bharathi create a bad impression in the minds of viewers about the judges and denounce the credibility of the Judiciary in the eyes of the public. He added that though any person aggrieved by the suo moto revision orders could challenge the same, it was not fit to attack the judge personally, especially by a politician who was capable of influencing the masses.

Shankar also argued that Bharathi was in the habit of denigrating the courts repeatedly and such misconduct deserved a treatment that would be a lesson for the rest of the community.

Shankar had also sought the consent of the Advocate General to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Bharathi. However, denying consent to proceed with contempt of court, then AG R Shanmughasundaram said that the comments made by RS Bharathi did not disclose any offence for initiating contempt and were a criticism of the court.

Relying on Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act which exempts fair criticism of judicial act, the AG added that Bharathi's comments were in the nature of criticism and there was no intention to scandalise the judicial proceedings or any intention to interfere with the judicial proceeding.

Though the registry had initially returned the petition claiming that it was not maintainable, the High Court asked the registry to number the case and list it. The High Court had remarked that the registry could not take the role of a judge and it was for the court to decide on the issue of maintainability.

When the case was taken up, Senior Advocate V Raghavachari, appearing for Shanar, argued that Bharathi's comments were not just mere allegations of bias but were intended to scandalise the entire judiciary and judicial proceedings. He added that being a lawyer, Bharathi had a responsibility to not make such comments against the judiciary.

The court, however, did not agree with this and remarked that citizens were free to assess and criticise the conduct of those holding public office including judges. The court also noted that Justice Venkatesh himself had refused to initiate contempt action against Bharathi and thus though it fit to dismiss the plea.

However, noting that Bharathi was a lawyer and seasoned politician and had a greater responsibility than any other ordinary citizen, the court remarked that Bharathi could have avoided the comments and should have exercised caution.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 390

Case Title: A Shankar and Another v RS Bharathi

Case No: CONT P/3212/2024