Justice G. Jayachandran of the Madras High Court criticized Justice G.R. Swaminathan for bias against the State police and hastily passing orders without consulting his bench partner in a habeas corpus petition involving YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar’s preventive detention under the Goondas Act.
Chennai: Justice G. Jayachandran of the Madras High Court has criticized Justice G.R. Swaminathan for displaying bias against the State police. He accused Justice Swaminathan of hastily passing orders without consulting his bench partner, Justice P.B. Balaji, in a habeas corpus petition involving the preventive detention of YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar under the Goondas Act.
READ ALSO: YouTuber Assaulted in Judicial Custody | HC Seeks Health Report on Savukku Shankar
Justice Jayachandran wrote:
“The failure to provide the State an opportunity to file a counter affidavit when requested, combined with the bias demonstrated by hastily passing orders without consulting the Bench partner, renders the opinion of Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan invalid.”
The third judge further stated:
“The Latin maxim audi alteram partem (no person should be judged without a fair hearing) is one of the first lessons taught in law schools… When we speak of fair opportunity, it means fairness in every sense. Scheduling the matter for the next day after notice, in order to decide the case for certain other reasons, cannot be considered adequate opportunity, much less a fair one.”
Responding to a reference made due to a difference of opinion between the two judges in the Division Bench, Justice Jayachandran stated that Justice Swaminathan’s failure to afford the State an opportunity to file a counter affidavit and his quick decision-making rendered his opinion invalid.
READ ALSO: HC Judge: “I Was Warned Not To Hear Jailed YouTuber Savukku Shankar’s Case”
Referring to Justice Swaminathan’s explanation that he would have allowed the police to file a counter affidavit and not immediately quashed the detention order if two “highly placed persons” had not approached him and requested that the HCP not be heard on merits, Justice Jayachandran acknowledged that “the learned senior judge (in the Division Bench), in all fairness of a judge, had given his explanation.”
However, he added,
“the reasons which triggered him to deny the State the opportunity are more disturbing and make his finding on facts liable to be disregarded, not only due to the lack of concurrence from the junior judge in the Bench but also due to the appearance of personal bias against the respondent, against whom a serious allegation of approaching through emissary is made.”
He further observed
“Such occurrences are rare while a judge is discharging their duty. Even if such an event happens, past history of this court indicates that judges typically report it to the Chief Justice and/or take action against interference in the administration of justice and/or recuse themselves from the case. From the words of the learned judge, he was compelled by the approach of two emissaries to bypass the normal course.”
Justice Jayachandran also wrote
“Even becoming annoyed or disturbed by back-door attempts to interfere with the administration of justice can induce negative bias… If a judge’s judicial tranquillity and balance are affected by annoyance caused by the parties, which impacts their impartiality and detachment required for judicial functions, the same also causes bias.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
