4 months ago
2
Justice P. Velmurugan of the Madras High Court, connected Monday (January 19, 2026), refused to recuse from proceeding an exertion filed by the Greater Chennai Police to cancel the interim bail granted to YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar, though helium had accused the justice of bias. The elder justice said: “You cannot blackmail the Bench too.”
Never recused: Judge
Presiding implicit a Division Bench on with Justice M. Jothiraman, the justice said, helium had ne'er recused from proceeding immoderate lawsuit successful his judicial vocation spanning implicit 20 years (11 years arsenic a territory justice and 9 years arsenic a High Court judge) and therefore, helium would not recuse from Shankar’s lawsuit too.
On being informed by the YouTuber’s counsel that a petition had been filed by his lawsuit apprehending bias if the bail cancellation petition was heard and decided by the Bench presided implicit by Justice Velmurugan, the elder justice said: “You cannot indulge successful forum shopping. I won’t entertain specified petitions.”
‘Not acrophobic of anyone’
Making it wide it was up to the counsel to attack the Chief Justice and get administrative orders for shifting the lawsuit to immoderate different Bench, the justice said: “As agelong arsenic this lawsuit is earlier me, I volition determine it arsenic per law. We are slightest bothered astir the comments that you marque against the court.”
He went to state: “We are slightest bothered astir individuals too. We don’t spot the look of the individuals. We lone work the papers, signifier sentiment and walk orders. We are besides not acrophobic astir immoderate peculiar blackmailer, we are lone acrophobic astir the institution.... I americium not acrophobic of anyone. I person my ain conscience.”
A Christmas abrogation Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and P. Dhanabal had connected December 27, 2025, granted the interim bail for 3 months to the YouTuber successful transportation with 17 transgression cases pending against him. The orders were passed connected a petition filed by A. Kamala, the parent of the accused.
However, successful the bail cancellation petition, the constabulary accused the YouTuber of having obtained the interim bail connected wellness grounds though helium was not suffering from immoderate large wellness issues. The constabulary besides accused him of threatening the victims and witnesses successful the transgression cases pending against him.
On Monday, the YouTuber’s counsel contended the constabulary ought to person made the YouTuber excessively arsenic 1 of the respondents to the bail cancellation petition and served announcement upon him without conscionable serving the announcement upon the counsel who represented his parent earlier the abrogation Bench.
Not successful statement with specified a stand, Justice Velmurugan asked: “When your parent obtained interim bail for you, did you accidental that you volition not travel retired of the jailhouse due to the fact that you did not record immoderate bail petition? Then, however tin you present accidental that the announcement connected the bail cancellation petition should beryllium served lone upon you?”
Grounds for bail cancellation
The counsel besides contended the bail was granted not lone connected wellness grounds but besides due to the fact that of repeated curtailment of the state of the idiosyncratic by detaining him successful aggregate cases and the bail cancellation plea indispensable beryllium heard by the aforesaid Bench which granted the bail.
However, connected uncovering that the antagonistic affidavit, successful effect to the bail cancellation plea, had not been filed successful the Registry, Justice Velmurugan’s seat granted clip for filing the antagonistic affidavit and ordered the bail cancellation petition indispensable beryllium listed for proceeding again connected Tuesday (January 20) afternoon.
“If you get administrative orders from the Chief Justice by then, we volition not perceive this case. Otherwise, we volition walk orders connected merits irrespective of the information arsenic to whether you record the antagonistic affidavit oregon not,” the justice told the counsel.
