Youtuber Savukku Shankar Moves Madras High Court Seeking Criminal Contempt Action Against RS Bharathi For Remarks Against Sitting Judge

Though Advocate P Vijendran requested for an urgent hearing, the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu asked him to give a written request to the Registrar (Judicial) and said that the matter would be listed within a week if the papers were in order.

RS Bharathi has been accused of making the remarks in light of the suo moto revisions that the judge had undertaken against the acquittal/discharge of legislators. It is submitted that while addressing media in this regard, Bharathi accused the judge of being partial, biased, and acting with a malafide intention and casting aspersions against the functioning of the court.

In his plea, filed along with law student Karthick Govindraj, Shankar submits 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 submitted that by making the remarks, Bharathi had interfered with the due course and administration of Justice.

Shankar further submitted 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 submitted that though a requisition for consent was given to the Advocate General, no action had been taken on the same. Adding that Advocate General’s consent is only to stop frivolous litigation, he requested the court to proceed with Contempt proceedings, without the Advocate General’s consent considering the nature and gravity of the current situation.

UPDATE

While denying consent to proceed with contempt of court, Advocate General R Shanmughasundaram said that the comments made by RS Bharathi did not disclose any offense for initiating contempt and were a criticism of the court.

In his order, the AG said that Bharati had categorically stated that he intended to approach the Supreme Court and raise these contentions before the Apex Court, and even otherwise, the Judge himself had refused to initiate any contempt proceedings against Bharathi.

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.

Thus, pointing out that there was no material to initiate contempt, and dismissed Shankar’s plea for consent.