You cannot blackmail the bench too, Madras High Court judge tells ‘Savukku’ Shankar

Overview On January 19, 2026 , Justice P. Velmurugan of the Madras High Court declined to recuse himself from hearing an application filed by the Greater Chennai Police to cancel the interim bail granted to YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar , also known as A. Shankar . Despite accusations of bias, the judge asserted his impartiality and commitment to deciding the case based on law. Key Developments Refusal to Recuse Justice Velmurugan , presiding over a Division Bench with Justice M. Jothiraman , stated that he had never recused himself from any case during his 20-year judicial career ( 11 years as a district judge and 9 years as a High Court judge). He emphasized that he would not entertain petitions suggesting bias or attempts at forum shopping. Court's Stance The judge made it clear that the court was not influenced by comments made against it and would decide the case based on the presented evidence and legal principles. He affirmed his commitment to the institution and his own conscience, stating, "I am not afraid of anyone." Background of the Case Interim Bail: Granted on December 27, 2025 , by a Christmas vacation Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and P. Dhanabal for three months . Cases: The bail was granted in connection with 17 criminal cases pending against the YouTuber. Petitioner: The bail petition was filed by A. Kamala , the mother of the accused. Bail Cancellation Petition: The police accused Shankar of obtaining bail on false health grounds and threatening victims and witnesses. Arguments Presented Notice Issue: The YouTuber’s counsel argued that notice should have been served directly on Shankar , not just his mother’s counsel. Grounds for Bail: The counsel contended that bail was granted not only on health grounds but also due to repeated curtailment of individual freedom. Bench Hearing: The counsel argued that the bail cancellation plea should be heard by the same Bench that granted the bail. Court's Decision The court granted time for filing a counter affidavit and scheduled the hearing for January 20 . Justice Velmurugan stated that if administrative orders were obtained from the Chief Justice to shift the case, the Bench would not hear it; otherwise, they would pass orders on merits. UPSC Relevance This case is relevant to GS2: Polity and Governance , particularly concerning the judiciary, criminal justice system, and fundamental rights. It touches upon issues of judicial independence, recusal, and the balance between freedom of speech and the administration of justice. Key Concepts Judicial Recusal: The process by which a judge excuses themselves from hearing a case due to potential bias or conflict of interest. Interim Bail: Temporary release of an accused person pending a full bail hearing. Forum Shopping: The practice of litigants seeking a court that is likely to rule in their favor. Potential Questions Discuss the importance of judicial recusal in maintaining the integrity of the judiciary. Analyze the grounds for bail cancellation and the factors considered by courts in such cases. Evaluate the role of the judiciary in protecting the fundamental rights of individuals while ensuring the proper administration of justice.

You cannot blackmail the bench too, Madras High Court judge tells ‘Savukku’ Shankar

Key Points

Full Article

You cannot blackmail the bench too, Madras High Court judge tells ‘Savukku’ Shankar

You cannot blackmail the bench too, Madras High Court judge tells ‘Savukku’ Shankar

Overview

Key Points

Full Article

Analysis