YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar gets 6-month jail for contempt

He has not expressed regret for remarks against the higher judiciary, says the Bench

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday held well-known blogger ‘Savukku’ Shankar guilty of criminal contempt for his remarks on the higher judiciary and sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment. He was directed to be lodged in Madurai Central Prison.

The court had initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Mr. Shankar following his remarks, “The entire higher judiciary is riddled with corruption,” made to a YouTube channel on July 22. Earlier, the court had framed charges and called upon him to explain, within a week, why he should not be held guilty of scandalising the judiciary by making statements in the public domain.

A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and B. Pugalendhi observed that the conduct of the contemnor deserves to be noted. Nowhere did he express 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. The Bench was of the view that 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.

“We would have closed the proceedings if the contemnor had realised his mistake and sincerely apologised. Far from doing so, the contemnor stuck to his position. In fact, his conduct during the last few weeks would constitute acts of contempt on their own,“ the judges said.

Taking note of the fact that criminal contempt had been initiated against him at the High Court principal seat six years ago, the judges said that yet, he made the offending statements.

“The contemnor has reiterated his resolve to continue his attack on the judiciary. He has gone to the extent of stating that he can be sentenced only to a maximum of six months and that after coming out, he will focus all his attention on judges and judiciary. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer stated that ‘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 has shown himself to be an unrepentant character,” the judges held.

At the hearing, Mr. Shankar contended that the proceedings were bereft of jurisdiction. Relying on the Contempt of Court Rules, he said that since the matter had not been forwarded to the Advocate-General in the first instance, the present proceedings were not maintainable. He submitted that he was concerned with the under-representation of the suppressed classes and the over-representation of Brahmins in the higher judiciary. He claimed his comments were taken out of context and that he had respect for the judiciary. His intention, he said, was only to demand improvement in the system. In his view, he is entitled to highlight public causes and should not be prevented from doing so.