The Madras High Court dismissed YouTuber Savukku Shankar’s petition seeking criminal contempt proceedings against DMK leader RS Bharathi. The court emphasized the importance of transparency in the judiciary, stating that “judges can’t shy away from criticism.” Bharathi’s comments were deemed protected under citizens’ freedom of speech, leading to the dismissal.
Chennai: The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition from YouTuber Savukku Shankar seeking the initiation of criminal contempt of court proceedings against lawyer and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader RS Bharathi. The petition stemmed from Bharathi’s comments about Justice N Anand Venkatesh, who had initiated suo motu revision proceedings against DMK legislators regarding cases related to disproportionate assets.
Context of the Case
A bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam noted that Justice Venkatesh had previously expressed his desire not to initiate contempt proceedings against Bharathi. Additionally, the Advocate General had declined to grant consent for such proceedings, a key factor in the court’s dismissal of Shankar’s petition.
The bench emphasized the principle of transparency as fundamental to the judiciary, stating, “Courts are public forums, their very foundation is transparency. The process of judicial making is strengthened by transparency and feedback.” They stressed that judges should not shy away from public scrutiny, reinforcing the notion that “the judiciary can’t be opaque and judges can’t hide behind curtains.”
Allegations Against Justice Venkatesh
Shankar’s petition arose from statements made by Bharathi during a press conference on August 24, 2023, where he accused Justice Venkatesh of exhibiting a “pick and choose policy” in initiating the suo motu proceedings and attributed malafide intentions to the judge. Shankar argued that Bharathi’s comments were designed to scandalize the judiciary and undermine its integrity.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate V Raghavachari, representing Shankar, argued that Bharathi’s allegations could lead to a loss of public confidence in the judiciary. He contended that Bharathi, as a lawyer and public figure, should have exercised more restraint in his comments.
Court’s Response
The court, however, reminded Raghavachari of the citizens’ rights to assess and criticize public officials, including judges. The bench queried, “Any conduct of a judge is always assessed by members of the public. These things are complicated. And what about a citizen’s freedom of speech?” This highlights a delicate balance between judicial respect and public discourse.
The bench also pointed out that Bharathi had not sought to apologize for his comments, nor did he express any remorse for his statements. The court questioned, “Did he (Bharathi) ever come and apologize and seek condonation? No. Instead, he engaged a counsel to argue.”
Legal Considerations
The judges clarified that even if the Advocate General had refused consent for contempt proceedings, a third party could still approach the court. However, they stated that such petitions must be treated as “information” rather than a formal request for action. The court explained, “The initial point to be considered is whether rejection of consent by AG would provide cause or right to a third person to file a plea under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act?”
This ruling underscores the principle that while judges must be held accountable, they also have the right to operate without undue fear of personal attack from public figures.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court’s decision to dismiss Shankar’s petition serves as a reminder of the complex relationship between public discourse and judicial integrity. By reinforcing the importance of transparency while also acknowledging the right to criticize, the court has taken a balanced approach to the delicate dynamics of the legal and political spheres in India. The ruling not only emphasizes the need for accountability among public officials but also upholds the judicial system’s foundational principles.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
