Chennai: The Madras high court on Friday dismissed activist Savukku Shankar’s plea seeking criminal contempt proceedings against DMK’s organising secretary R S Bharathi for his comments against Justice Anand Venkatesh. The court said that the judiciary must be a transparent institution which welcomes criticism.
This case pertains to six suo moto revisions that were taken up by justice Venkatesh against either the acquittal or discharge of DMK and AIADMK heavyweight politicians in corruption cases. At that time, in August 2023, at a press conference Bharathi had alleged that justice Venkatesh was biased against the DMK by adopting a “pick and choose policy” which showed malafide intent. Shankar, a whistleblower turned Youtuber moved court last August stating that Bharathi had committed criminal contempt. Shankar was recently released on bail by the Supreme Court after he was arrested for cases related to ganga and defamation against women police officers.
A division bench of justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam on Friday said that Bharathi could have avoided the comments but they do not find it necessary to invoke the contempt against him especially when Justice Venkatesh himself had refused to do so. “Courts are public forums, their very foundation is transparency,” the justices said according to the Bar and Bench. “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.”
Senior counsel P Wilson appeared for Bharathi. Senior counsel V Raghavachari appearing for Shankar argued that Bharathi who is not just a DMK leader but a lawyer himself made comments that were intended to scandalise the entire judiciary. Last year, advocate general R Shunmugasundaram had denied consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Bharathi. “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 according to Bar and Bench.
{{/usCountry}}Senior counsel P Wilson appeared for Bharathi. Senior counsel V Raghavachari appearing for Shankar argued that Bharathi who is not just a DMK leader but a lawyer himself made comments that were intended to scandalise the entire judiciary. Last year, advocate general R Shunmugasundaram had denied consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Bharathi. “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 according to Bar and Bench.
{{/usCountry}}The court concluded that the petitioner’s plea is not maintainable under section 15 of the contempt of courts act since the consent of the Advocate General was refused, Wilson told HT. The Court held that sunlight is the best disinfectant and the judicial process must be open to scrutiny, he added. The judges further observed that the best witness for a Judge’s conduct is their conscience.
Last year justice Venkatesh had initiated suo moto action against ministers Thangam Thennarasu (finance), K Ponmudy (higher education before his portfolio was changed recently) and KKSSR Ramachandran (revenue and disaster), I Periyasamy(rural development minister) and former AIADMK minister B Valarmathi and expelled AIADMK leader and former chief minister O Panneerselvam.