Plea In Madras High Court Seeks Constitution Of Special Bench For Faster Disposal Of Cases Against Public Spirited Persons, Journalists & Youtubers

When the case came up before the bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, the bench directed the petitioner to give detailed statistics of the number of cases pending against such persons before the High Court and also directed the respondents to respond to the plea.

"Can you give us the statistics on how many cases are pending against Journalists in the High Court? We can take steps to dispose of the cases at the earliest but we can't constitute a special bench for it. You've not placed any materials. If you give use the statistics, we can still do something," the court told the petitioner. 

The petitioner, S Muralidharan, alleged that the ruling disposition in the State was engaging in a "witch-hunt" against any journalists/YouTubers and filing cases against them whenever a dissenting voice was raised. He contended that the fourth pillar of democracy needed to be protected and any type of gagging needed to be prevented. He further argued that the State was engaging in "vendetta politics" by filing cases against the dissenting voices.

In his plea, Muralidharan argued that the law and order in the State was in shambles. He stated that the police force, instead of doing their primary duty of protecting the State, is busy spending all the forces in arresting individuals for their social media posts against the State and the first family. Citing the recent arrest of YouTuber and Whistleblower Savukku Shankar, he pointed out that more than 20 police officers were seen escorting Shankar to the jail. He added that by using police force to settle personal/political scores, the idea was not just to do a witch hunt, but also induce a fear among the fourth pillar.

He added that presently, the mainstream media was aligning with political parties ideologically or in fear of or for money and were forced to turn a blind eye to the truth and were mostly forced to peddle what the ruling dispensation wanted. He added that at such times, whistleblowers like Savukku Shankar, Maridas, Saatai Durai, Arappor Iyakkam, etc added strength to the fourth pillar of democracy by bringing the truth to the common man. However, he also pointed out that their content and lingo could be toxic at times and could be regulated by the State. He thus pointed out that gagging their fundamental right to speech and expression is detrimental to democracy.

Objecting to the plea, the counsel for the High Court argued that the Chief Justice, being Master of the Roster had the prerogative to fix the benches for hearing any cases. He added that in the present case, the Registrar General was made a respondent, who is only the head of administration and has no role in fixing the roster.

The counsel also argued that though freedom of the press must be protected, when there is a law and order problem, it is necessary to take appropriate action. He added that though the petitioner claimed that the cases were not being disposed of promptly, the courts had made all efforts to dispose of the cases earnestly. Thus, arguing that the allegation does not hold water, he pleaded with the court to reject the plea.

While the court said that the prayer could be altered to keep the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders, it stressed that the petitioner had not given statistical details of the cases pending against journalists before the High Court.

Case Title: S Muralidharan v High Court of Madras and Others

Case No: WP 15921 of 2024