The Madras High Court Friday dismissed a petition filed by YouTuber Savukku Shankar seeking initiation of criminal contempt of court proceedings against lawyer and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader RS Bharathi for the latter's comments against Justice N Anand Venkatesh.
A bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam noted that previously, Justice Venkatesh himself had expressed a desire to not initiate any contempt proceedings against Bharathi for such comments and that the Advocate General too had previously refused to grant consent for initiation of contempt proceedings against Bharathi in the case.
The Bench further said that transparency is the very foundation of the judiciary and that judges have to face public scrutiny.
“Courts are public forums, their very foundation is transparency. Process of judicial making is strengthened by transparency and feedback. Judges can’t shy away from criticism. Judiciary also have to public scrutiny. The Constitution and our conscience are our only guides. The judiciary can’t be opaque and judges can’t hide behind curtains," the High Court said.
However, the Court added that since Bharathi is a lawyer and also a public figure, he should have exercised greater restraint while making the comments.
Shankar moved the Court against Bharathi for making statements alleging bias on part of Justice Venkatesh, who had initiated suo motu revision proceedings against DMK legislators in cases relating to disproportionate assets.
Shankar moved the Court after Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram refused consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Bharathi.
Shankar claimed in his petition that Bharathi, while addressing a press conference on August 24, 2023, had accused Justice Venkatesh of not only adopting a “pick and choose policy” in initiating the suo motu proceedings, but had also attributed malafide intentions to the judge by claiming he was biased against the DMK.
Senior Advocate V Raghavachari, appearing for Shankar, argued that Bharathi's allegations were intended to scandalise the entire judiciary and judicial proceedings.
However, the bench led by Justice Subramaniam reminded Raghavachari that citizens were free to assess and even criticise the conduct of those holding public offices including judges.
The bench also noted that Justice Venkatesh himself had expressed his desire “not to take action” in the matter.
“Any conduct of a judge is always assessed by members of the public. These things are complicated. And what about a citizen’s freedom of speech?” the bench asked.
Raghavachari argued that Bharathi was not merely a representative of the DMK but was also a lawyer and had a certain responsibility to make only fair comments and not scandilise the judiciary.
“Did he (Bharathi) ever come and apologise and seek condonation? No. Instead, he engaged a counsel to argue. If this doesn't shock your Lordships conscience then what does? Someone is making a direct allegation that some judges are against or favour a certain political party? How can the Court condone this?” Raghavachari asked.
The Bench went on to say that while a third party was free to file a petition before the High Court seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against someone even after the Advocate General had refused consent, courts must treat such petition merely as "information."
"The initial point to be considered is whether rejection of consent by AG would provide cause or right to a third person to file a plea under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act? In the absence of consent from the AG, a plea must be treated only as an information on which the High Court might or might not take suo motu action under Section 15," the Court said while dismissing Shankar's petition.