New Delhi: Madurai bench of Madras High Court described popular Youtuber Savukku Shankar as an “unrepentant character” who is “no stranger to contempt proceedings”, while imprisoning him for six months on charges of contempt of court Thursday.
Words of a man who has the “ready ear of thousands” on social media would have the effect of “lowering the dignity and prestige” of this institution, noted a bench of justices G.R. Swaminathan and B. Pugalendhi, as it convicted Shankar of contempt for levelling allegations of corruption in higher judiciary.
Quoting former Supreme Court judge, Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, the bench said in its order: “Justice fails when Judges quail. We do not propose to quail. There are occasions when Judges have to be firm and stern. Shrugging off such provocations by stating that we possess broad shoulders would be seen as a sign of weakness. The contemnor [a person found to be in contempt of court] has shown himself to be an unrepentant character.”
The HC had registered a contempt case against Shankar after taking suo-motu cognizance of his tweet made on 18 July 2022 in which Shankar suggested that the outcome of a case against a fellow YouTuber was influenced by an outsider whom Justice Swaminathan allegedly met. The tweet, however, did not name the purported influencer.
Since the innuendo “questioned the judicial integrity” of the judges, a case was registered against Shankar in the HC. But that did not deter the suspended Tamil Nadu government official from taking aim at the judiciary.
Even before the court could take up his case, Shankar in a YouTube interview on 22 July, as per the HC judgement, further “trivialised the issue by suggesting that one of the two judges [Justice Swaminathan] referred by him in his tweet could have met the temple priest”.
In the very same interview, the judgement further noted, Shankar stated that “the entire higher judiciary is riddled with corruption”.
“It does not require a forensic mind to conclude that they are ex-facie [on the face of it] scandalous. They denigrate and deride the institution of judiciary,” the bench ruled.
Also Read: India bans 8 YouTube channels, 1 from Pakistan, for spreading ‘religious hate, security lies’
‘Anti-corruption crusader, whistleblower’
As mentioned in the judgement, Shankar — a constable with Tamil Nadu’s Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption who is under suspension — is no stranger to contempt proceedings.
In June 2016, the HC took serious note of the fact that Shankar’s website was registered in the name of a sitting HC judge, who was also named as the admin of the portal. A probe had revealed that Shankar was making payments for the service using his credit card.
A contempt notice was issued to Shankar but no proceedings took place over the last six years. “Its [case’s] continuance in the cold storage appears to have emboldened him to be more vituperative, reckless and scandalous,” the judgement issued Thursday recorded.
From humble origins, Shankar is a self-professed whistleblower, activist and political commentator. People in the know say that he makes very large claims, often slander, but he is a good man at heart, is not corrupt and talks about issues that plague society.
It was in the mid-1990s, after his father (also a DVAC employee) passed away that Shankar joined the department as a low-level employee. Even while working with the DVAC, he continued to file RTIs, and claimed to have unearthed corruption scandals.
Shankar was arrested in April 2008 on charges of leaking a tape of a conversation between two IAS officers — the then Tamil Nadu chief secretary L.K. Tripathy and then DVAC Director S.K. Upadhyay — over a corruption case against AIADMK chief J. Jayalalithaa relating to the purchase of her Kodanad estate. An additional sessions court in Chennai subsequently acquitted Shankar in the case, exempting him of all charges in 2017.
Following his suspension from DVAC, Shankar went on to launch his web portal ‘Savukku.net’ in 2009, where he continued to present political analysis, commentary and investigations. The website was blocked in 2014 by the HC for “being vituperative and tarnishing the reputation of many people, including judges and police officers”.
His Twitter account, too, was suspended earlier this year but that did not stop him from using an alternative account or making regular appearances on Tamil YouTube channels.
The “entire judiciary is riddled with corruption” remark he made during one such appearance — on Tamil YouTube channel ‘Redpix’ — is what the HC has now found to be contempt of court.
What happened in HC
Shankar defended his statement during the contempt proceedings in HC and in an affidavit filed on 15 September, even said the alleged “statement fell from my mouth” in the course of an hour-long conversation. The words, he claimed, were part of a larger statement.
The affidavit read: “When taken out of its context and seen in a standalone statement, it may seem it could have been better worded. However, when heard in context and when the circumstances in which the conversation has happened is looked at in its entirety and when the statements before and after are looked at, this Hon’ble Court will believe me when I say that the statement does not show and is not intended to show any disrespect to the Hon’ble Court nor to scandalise the Court.
Adding that the charges were “expanded to beyond what was in the contempt notice”, Shankar said in his affidavit that this “expanding of charges is unfair”. “I must know specifically what I am to reply to and be given sufficient time to reply. If the goalpost keeps shifting I am placed at a disadvantage,” he argued.
Shankar also denied the charge that his conversations were abusive or scandalising. Rather, according to him, they were well-meaning and very important conversations.
But the court rejected Shankar’s explanation and, instead, saw it as a “justification in making the charged statements”.
“Nowhere he expressed his regret or remorse. He did not offer any apology at all. On the other hand, he asserted that he was justified in making the charged statements. A reading of the charged statements would lead anyone to the conclusion that they are likely to lower the prestige and dignity of courts and judges,” the court noted in its verdict.
It further noted that Shankar would be “well within his rights to highlight specific instances of corruption”, provided they are “backed by materials” but he cannot “tar the entire institution with a single brush”.
“That would be crossing the lakshman rekha by a long shot,” the judgement noted.
The court expressed its aversion to Shankar making a general disparaging comment against district judges, who, he alleged, “appoint good looking widows and utilize their services”.
“He directly means that they are used for sexual gratification. During the course of proceedings, the contemnor named one judicial officer and claimed that he was dismissed for the said misconduct. Though no material has been placed before us as to whether the dismissal was linked to any sexual misconduct, we are of the clear view that the contemnor could have at best named the said officer in his interview and referred to the materials in support of his allegation,” the bench noted.
It added that Shankar could not have used a general expression to say that “some district judges have weakness for women” and make sweeping allegations, which in the court’s view, would be offensive and fall foul of law”.
The court clarified that had he made “specific allegations, based on prima facie evidence and in good faith, [it] would definitely fall within the ambit of the right to freedom of speech and expression”.
Moreover, the court also took cognizance of Shankar’s statements against sitting senior Supreme Court judges who have served in the Madras HC. “The contribution of the Apex Court is unparalleled. All its Judges are entitled to the highest respect. Remarks impinging on their dignity cannot be casually made,” the HC noted.
The bench also took into account Shankar’s following on social media. “His interviews are watched by lakhs of viewers,” the bench noted, adding that the comments posted on his interviews portrayed courts and judges in the “most savage terms”.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read:IIT graduate to ‘Flying Beast’ – How Gaurav Taneja’s online fame led to his Noida Metro arrest