The Supreme Court stated that Justice Jayachandran should have refrained from commenting on Justice Swaminathan. Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah emphasized, “We must always remember the distinction between judging and being judgmental.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court noted that Justice G. Jayachandran of the Madras High Court should have refrained from making severe comments about Justice G.R. Swaminathan in a ruling made in June regarding the detention of YouTuber Savukku Shankar under the Goondas Act.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Shudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah stated,
“The learned judge of the High Court has made some observations on his brother judge which should have been best avoided. It is always necessary for us to remember the distinction between judging and being judgemental.”
The bench made these remarks while addressing a special leave petition (SLP) filed by A. Kamala, the YouTuber’s mother, challenging the decisions made by Justice Jayachandran and the subsequent ruling by a Division Bench consisting of Justices M.S. Ramesh and Sunder Mohan, which denied her case an expedited hearing.
The Supreme Court concluded the SLP after noting the submissions of senior counsel Siddharth Dave, representing the petitioner, and senior counsel Sidharth Luthra, representing the Tamil Nadu government, who agreed to jointly request a prompt resolution of the petitioner’s case before the bench led by Justice Ramesh.
The judges remarked,
“We too request the High Court to expedite the hearing in this matter considering that it relates to preventive detention. As mentioned above, we express no opinion on the merits of the case since the High Court is currently handling it,”
Additionally, they granted interim bail to the detainee upon furnishing two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each.
Before concluding the SLP, the Supreme Court advised against High Court judges making remarks about their colleagues. The habeas corpus petition (HCP) filed by the YouTuber’s mother challenging his detention initially resulted in a split decision on May 24 between Justices Swaminathan and P.B. Balaji.
Justice Swaminathan nullified the detention order, whereas Justice Balaji believed the State should be allowed to file its counter affidavit before any decision made. Justice Jayachandran, appointed as the third judge to resolve the tie, concurred with Justice Balaji’s view and criticized Justice Swaminathan.
The Supreme Court addressed this criticism, stating it should have been avoided. Following the Supreme Court’s order on Thursday, Ms. Kamala’s counsel on record, Balaji Srinivasan, requested an expedited hearing of the HCP before the Bench led by Justice Ramesh on Friday.
When Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak asked for time to produce a copy of the Supreme Court’s order.
The Division Bench agreed to schedule the HCP hearing for Tuesday.