Madras High Court directs ‘Savukku’ Shankar to pay ₹1 lakh to T.N. State Legal Services Authority in four weeks

The Madras High Court on Friday directed YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar to pay ₹1 lakh to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, within four weeks, for having made defamatory remarks against Minister V. Senthilbalaji despite an interim injunction granted by the court on August 23, 2022, and not expressing any remorse for having done so.

The Madras High Court on Friday directed YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar to pay ₹1 lakh to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, within four weeks, for having made defamatory remarks against Minister V. Senthilbalaji despite an interim injunction granted by the court on August 23, 2022, and not expressing any remorse for having done so.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu further directed the YouTuber to file an affidavit of undertaking before the High Court, within four weeks, stating that in future, he would guard himself against violating orders passed by any court and would not make any comments which may impinge upon the majesty of the courts.

The directions were issued on an application filed by the Minister early this year to punish the YouTuber for having continued to make defamatory allegations even after the interim injunction. The judge also found the respondent to have recirculated on social media, the messages which the court prima facie found to be defamatory, before issuing the injunction.

“I am of the view that the respondent has committed an act of wilful disobedience of the order,” the judge said and pointed out that the YouTuber had also not shown any remorse for his action and instead attempted to justify it by claiming that the interim injunction could not be interpreted as a blanket gag order.

“His reasoning that it was his analysis that court would not have granted a gag order as assumed by the Minister, in my considered view, is wholly misplaced. The respondent claims himself to be a journalist and political analyst but not a jurist. When that be so he ought to have taken an opinion from an expert in law,” the judge wrote.

The judge went on to state: “Further, if he has any doubt about the order passed by this court, he should have approached this court either seeking clarification or modification of the order. The respondent has not attempted to do so but has admitted to continue making statements claiming that they are not defamatory.”

At the same time, the judge also rejected the injunction application that had been taken out by the Minister last year and vacated the interim injunction granted on August 23 on the grounds that the YouTube videos and tweets only make various allegations against the Minister in performance of his official duties and those allegations were already in the public domain.