Madras High Court Vacates Interim Order Restraining Savukku Shankar From Making Statements Against Senthil Balaji

Justice K Kumaresh Babu noted that as per previous decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court, only statements of a person dealing with private life would be subject to scrutiny in a pretrial stage. The court added that in the present case, the videos and comments were made against the Minister in his official duty and thus the court was not inclined to grant the relief of injunction prayed for.

"The Youtube videos & tweets tabulated supra only make various allegations as against the applicant in performance of his official duties. Further most of the statements are already available in public domain. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (1994) 6 SCC 632 which has been also followed by a Division Bench of this Court in R.Rajagopal's case in (2006) 2 LW 377. I am of the considered view that there cannot be any injunction as prayed for against the respondent", the court said.

At the same time, in another petition moved by the Minister claiming that Shankar had violated the earlier order of the court and continued to make derogatory comments, the court directed Shankar to pay a sum of One Lakh rupees for his remorseless conduct "impinging the majesty of the court".

The court noted that even after the interim order passed in August last year, Shankar had reposted the earlier statements which were found to be defamatory. This, in the opinion of the court, was wilful disobedience which was liable to be punished.

"In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as extracted supra, and in view that the statements made by the respondent after the order dated 23.08.2022, that to particularly the re-uploading of the statements upon which the court has prima facie found disrepute to the applicant, and also for the other reasonings stated supra, I am of the view that the respondent has committed an act of wilful disobedience of the order and is liable to be punished," the court said.

Though Shankar had submitted before the court that as per his understanding, the court would not have issued a gag order, the court refused to agree with this contention and observed that Shankar should have approached the court for any clarification.

"The respondent claims himself to be a journalist and political analyst but not a jurist. When that be so he ought to have taken an opinion from an expert in law and further if he has any doubt about the order passed by this court, he should have approached this court either seeking clarification or modification of the order. The respondent has not attempted to do so but has admitted to continue making statements claiming that they are not defamatory," the court noted.

The court also asked Shankar to file an undertaking saying that he would not violate any orders of the court or make any comments impinging the majesty of the courts.

"He shall also file an affidavit of undertaking that in future he shall guard himself against violating any orders passed by any Court, or even make any comments which may impinge the majesty of the Courts. Such affidavit shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today," the court added.

In August last year, Justice Krishnan Ramasamay had granted interim injunction to the Minister who had moved the court claiming that Shankar had posted a video on Youtube where he alleged that the Minister was running all the TASMAC shops in the State, among other allegations.

The Minister had also contended that the videos were a deliberate attempt to tarnish his reputation. Further, it would also affect his personal and political image. He also submitted that Shankar was constantly engaged in tarnishing the image of the judiciary and this had even led to the Maduari bench to initiate a suo moto contempt case against him.

While granting the interim injunction, Justice Ramasamy had noted that no one had a right to disparage the reputation of another in a democratic setup. The court had also noted that prima facie, Shankar had indulged in slander having posted various videos and tweets in social media which would tarnish the Minister's personal and political reputation and thus had restrained him.