Special bench for YouTubers’ cases: Madras High Court junks plea

File photo of ‘Savukku’ Shankar

The Madras High Court has refused to order the constitution of a special bench to hear cases related to public-spirited individuals, journalists, and YouTubers like ‘Savukku’ Shankar, alias A. Shankar, of Savukku Media, and G. Felix Jerald of Redpix Media.

First Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice D. Krishnakumar and Justice P.B. Balaji dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by S. Muralidharan and held that no person had the right to invoke the writ jurisdiction and seek a direction to constitute a special bench.

“The relief sought (in the present PIL petition) has the undertones of commanding a direction from a Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice on the judicial side to the Chief Justice on the administrative side to constitute a special bench,” the judges wrote.

Arguing the case in person, the petitioner had claimed that the State government had been gagging journalists, particularly YouTubers, who act as whistleblowers and expose scams committed by those in power. He cited the cases booked against ‘Savukku’ Shankar and others.

He told the court that social media adds strength to the fourth pillar of democracy even though its content and lingo could be toxic at times. He prayed for a direction to constitute a special bench to fast-track the hearing of cases related to journalists, YouTubers, and other public-spirited individuals.

On the other hand, senior counsel P.M. Subramaniam, representing the High Court’s Registrar General, said the Chief Justice was the master of the roster who had the prerogative to constitute benches and allocate portfolios on the administrative side, and no such judicial direction could be issued to them.

Concurring with his submissions, the Division Bench said a Chief Justice enjoys the special status of being the first among the equals (all other judges) on the judicial side of a High Court but having the entire control of the High Court on the administrative side.

“No person has a right to invoke the writ jurisdiction seeking a direction to constitute a Special Bench. It is for the Chief Justice to consider the grievance of the petitioner on the administrative side, and the same can neither be espoused nor redressed by way of a public interest litigation,” the Bench held.

Stating that various factors would have to be taken into consideration before constituting a special bench, the judges said it was not the case of the present petitioner that there was a huge backlog of cases against journalists and YouTubers warranting the constitution of a special bench.

“The petitioner has not placed a shred of material listing out the number of cases pending as on date and for how many years the same are pending. It is not in dispute that the normal course of hearing of the said cases is proceeding unhindered and the matters are being taken up by the judges as per roster,” the Bench said.

It observed that entertaining cases of the present nature would pave the way for other sections of the society too to approach the court for constitution of special benches. “Encouraging litigations of this nature will also lead to the litigant choosing who should decide their case,” the Bench added.

“It is a well-settled proposition of law that public interest litigation is a crucial tool for promoting social justice and holding authorities accountable. However, the instant petition can be labelled as a waste of time as it lacks specific details or particulars regarding the grievance sought to be addressed,” the judges said.

“Moreover, it is not as if the alleged victims are voiceless and they are remediless. The alleged victims pointed out in the petition viz., Felix Gerald, Editor of RedPix Media and Savukku Shankar of Savukku Media YouTube channel are not persons who are incognizant of their constitutional guarantees.

“Indeed, petitions filed by these persons were/are considered by the roster benches and they have approached even the Supreme Court. When the alleged victims are cognizant of their rights and are pursuing the same, we do not find any necessity to consider the present writ petition even on merits,” the Bench concluded.