"Malign Somebody, Then Unconditional Apology": Supreme Court Criticises Tamil Nadu YouTuber Savukku Shankar For His Remarks Against Judges
|The Supreme Court heard the SLP filed by the YouTuber Savukku Shankar against the order of Madras High Court refusing his plea to direct CBI to register a case on his complaint regarding alleged siphoning of government funds in implementation of sanitary workers development scheme.
Today, the Supreme Court, while hearing an SLP filed by 'Savukku' Shankar, a YouTuber and social media influencer from Tamil Nadu, criticised him, referring to him being hauled up in a contempt case for comments against Judges.
The SLP was filed against the Madras High Court's Judgment dismissing Shankar’s plea for a CBI probe into the alleged siphoning of government funds in the implementation of the sanitary workers development scheme.
'Savukku' Shankar is a former Special Assistant in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and a renowned Tamil YouTuber who has also been charged in multiple contempt proceedings. He has also been held guilty of criminal contempt of court on account of his scandalous interviews and comments made against the judiciary.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria issued notice in the Special Leave Petition.
Advocate appearing for the Shankar submitted, "The High Court finds that everything is irregular in this... Because I raised these issues, my house was vandalised."
He further submitted that Shankar's request of investigation by CBI has been refused by the Madras High Court; resultantly, Shankar has challenged the same through the SLP. It was also pointed out that another SLP has been filed by Shankar's Mother, A. Kamala, against the order of the Madras High Court, as their house was trespassed by around twenty people, and she was also threatened with dire consequences.
Advocate appearing for Shankar highlighted, "My house was vandalised because I raised these issues."
An FIR was lodged regarding the ransacking of Shankar's house for the offences punishable under Sections 191(1), 115, 332(c), 324(4), 351(2) and 296(b) of BNS, 2023.
Justice Vinod Chandran then remarked, “You were hauled up for contempt”. To which, the Advocate replied that he had tendered an unconditional apology.
Upon which Justice Vinod Chandran remarked, “That’s what everybody does. Malign somebody and then unconditional apology."
Shankar has a history of being involved in contempt proceedings. Earlier, the Madras High Court took suo moto cognizance against Shankar as he allegedly, in open court, commented that one of the judges felt offended by his strident criticism of some of the judgments.
While convicting and sentencing him for contempt of court, the Madras High Court had observed, "Yet, he has been attacking all the three organs of the State in a vicious manner. He is already facing criminal contempt proceedings. Yet, he has made the offending statements. The contemnor has reiterated his resolve to continue his attack on judiciary. He has gone to the extent of stating that he can be sentenced only to a maximum of six months and that after coming out, he will focus all his attention exclusively on judges and judiciary. Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer stated that Justice fails when Judges quail. We do not propose to quail. There are occasions when Judges have to be firm and stern. Shrugging off such provocations by stating that we possess broad shoulders would be seen as a sign of weakness. The contemnor has shown himself to be an unrepentant character. Bearing in mind the principles set out by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision reported in (2016) 2 CTC 113 (W.Peter Ramesh Kumar), we sentence the contemnor to six months simple imprisonment. He shall be taken to custody forthwith and lodged in Central Prison, Madurai."
Case Background
Shankar filed a Writ Petition before the Madras High Court alleging siphoning of government funds in the implementation of sanitary workers development scheme by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB). It was also alleged that malpractices have been committed while implementing the said project, specifically that beneficiaries were chosen by a private non-statutory entity Dalit Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DICCI), and that these beneficiaries entered into agreements with one M/s Gen Green Logistics Private Limited.
While the State claimed that the Government had passed an order exempting CMWSSB from the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. It was submitted that DICCI had offered its services to identify the poor SC/ST scavengers free of cost and would be given practical training in execution of the work with focus on safety, and would also be given special training for skill development. CMWSSB submitted that beneficiaries identified by DICCI were awarded contracts and thereafter, the beneficiaries and Gengreen Logistics and Management Pvt. Ltd. entered into separate tripartite agreements.
The Madras High Court refused to direct the case to the CBI to register a case on Shankar’s complaint.
In July 2024, the Supreme Court ordered the release of Shankar, who was detained under the Goondas Act by the Tamil Nadu Police for alleged derogatory statements about women police police officials in an interview to a YouTube channel.
Cause Title: A. Shankar Alias Savukku Shankar V. The Director And Ors ( SLP(Crl) No. 10476/2025 II-C)