Prerna Gala
Published on: September 16, 2022 at 20:23 IST
Savukku Shankar, a YouTuber, was given a six-month prison sentence for Contempt of Court by the Madurai branch of the Madras High Court on Thursday.
Shankar’s sentence was not suspended or the order was not stayed by a bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and B Pugalenthi.
Even though Shankar claimed in his defence that his words had been misinterpreted and that he had spoken up only out of concern for the judiciary, the bench ruled that this could not be considered a “mitigating circumstance.”
“He (Shankar) claimed to be deeply concerned with the under-representation of the suppressed classes and the over-representation of brahmins in higher judiciary. He took us through the report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes on reservation in judiciary and pointed out that his article referred to in the charges is a mere echo of the very same views.”
“He emphasized that his comments have been taken out of context. He reiterated that he has respect for judiciary and that he only wants the system to be rid of some of the evils plaguing it.”
“He asserted that if his interviews and articles are considered as a whole, then it would be evident that his intention was only to demand improvement in the system and not anything else. However, as already held, that would not amount to a mitigating circumstance at all,” High Court said.
The bench added that Shankar’s behaviour merited mention. If Shankar had “realized his mistake and honestly apologized,” the court would have dismissed the case, the statement stated. Yet far from doing so, the contemnor maintained his stance, according to the high court.
Following his public accusation that “the entire judiciary” was “infested with corruption” on the YouTube channel “Red Pix,” Shankar was subject to contempt proceedings.
The Madurai bench began suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Shankar after he made the accusation on July 22.
Shankar received a second notice from the high court on August 4 asking why contempt charges should not be brought against him.
Later, Shankar had informed the Madurai bench that he “stood by” the claims he had made regarding the pervasive corruption in the legal system.
Advocate AL Somayaji, the Amicus Curiae assigned in the case, said the bench at the hearing on Thursday that Shankar’s utterances had been made with the “aim to scandalize the court.”
In a written response presented to the bench during the day’s hearing, Shankar stated that he “truly loved” his country and wanted the country’s institutions be improved.
He claimed that he speaks up and writes for this reason.