‘Savukku’ Shankar. File
Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava on Wednesday (January 21, 2026) came down heavily on the counsel for YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar for accusing Justice P. Velmurugan of being biased against his client in a petition filed by the Greater Chennai City Police to cancel the interim bail granted to him.
When the advocate made a mention before the first Division Bench, also comprising Justice G. Arul Murugan, and complained that Justice Velmurugan had termed his client a “blackmailer,” the Chief Justice said, any order passed by the court could be taken on appeal instead of engaging in mudslinging against judges.
“You are making an allegation of bias against whom?” the Chief Justice asked the counsel and said: “Don’t use the court proceedings and indulge in this kind of abuse.” He also wondered how a lawyer, with 39 years of standing in the Bar, could level such allegations against a judge before another Bench.
On being told that a Division Bench led by Justice Velmurugan had reserved orders on the bail cancellation petition on Tuesday (January 20), the Chief Justice said: “If some order is passed, challenge it. What kind of allegation are you making? Just because you may suffer some adverse order, you are making these kind of allegations?”
The Chief Justice went on to state: “This is not the right place to make such allegations. You have a remedy under the law. If you are aggrieved by the order, go on appeal. Don’t indulge in mudslinging. How long have you been in practice, Mr. Counsel? Don’t you understand it cannot be done like this?”
The Chief Justice said, a mention of this nature could not be made before the first Division Bench on the judicial side. “We will not permit this practice at all. Please do not do it before this court. We will not allow the court proceedings to be misused and abused in this manner,” he told the counsel.
What is the hearing about?
A Christmas vacation Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and P. Dhanabal had granted interim bail to the YouTuber in December 2025 in connection with 17 criminal cases pending against him after considering that he was a cardiac and diabetic patient, whose liberty had been curtailed repeatedly by the police.
However, after the vacation, the city police filed an application for the cancellation of the interim bail on the ground that the YouTuber was not suffering any major health issues as was projected by his mother before the court for the purpose of obtaining interim bail, and that he was regularly posting videos pursuant to his release.
The police also accused Mr. Shankar of threatening the victims, as well as the witnesses, in some of the criminal cases pending against him and said, in one of his YouTube videos, he had gone to the extent of calling the investigating officer in an extortion case against him, a murderer.
When the bail cancellation petition was taken up for hearing by a Division Bench comprising Justices Velmurugan and M. Jothiraman on January 19, the YouTuber’s counsel filed a petition alleging bias against the senior judge in the Bench. However, the judge refused to recuse from the case.
“You cannot blackmail the Bench too,” Justice Velmurugan said and told his counsel that he had never ever recused from hearing any case in his judicial career spanning over 20 years (11 years as a district judge and nine years as a High Court judge) and that he would not recuse from this case either.
Thereafter, the Bench led by Justice Velmurugan heard the arguments advanced by Additional Public Prosecutor R. Muniyapparaj and the YouTuber’s counsel on Tuesday and decided to pronounce orders on Friday (January 23). In the meantime, the counsel ended up making a mention before the Chief Justice.
Published – January 21, 2026 12:01 pm IST
