Chennai, Jan 21 (IANS) The Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, on Wednesday strongly reprimanded a senior advocate for making allegations of judicial bias against a sitting judge while mentioning a criminal matter involving YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar.

The remarks were made when the counsel appeared before the first Division Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice G. Arul Murugan, and complained that Justice P. Velmurugan had been biased against his client while hearing a petition filed by the Greater Chennai City Police seeking cancellation of interim bail.

Objecting firmly, the Chief Justice said that any judicial order passed by a court must be challenged only through legally recognised remedies, such as appeals.

“Any order can be taken on appeal. Don’t use court proceedings to indulge in mudslinging against judges,” he told the counsel, expressing concern that a lawyer with 39 years of experience at the Bar would raise such an allegation before another Bench.

When informed that a Division Bench headed by Justice Velmurugan had already reserved orders on the bail cancellation plea on January 20, the Chief Justice said adverse orders, if any, could be questioned only in accordance with law.

“This is not the right forum to make such allegations. We will not permit misuse or abuse of court proceedings,” he warned, adding that such mentions could not be made before the first Division Bench on the judicial side.

The issue stems from the interim bail granted in December 2025 to YouTuber Savukku Shankar by a Christmas vacation Bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and P. Dhanabal.

The relief was granted after the court was informed that the accused, facing 17 criminal cases, was a cardiac and diabetic patient whose liberty had been repeatedly curtailed by the police.

After the vacation, the Greater Chennai City Police moved the High Court seeking cancellation of the interim bail, contending that the health issues projected before the court were exaggerated.

The police also pointed out that Shankar had been regularly uploading videos after his release, and alleged that he had threatened victims and witnesses in some of the pending cases.

In one video, he was accused of calling the investigating officer in an extortion case a murderer. When the bail cancellation petition was taken up on January 19 by a Division Bench comprising Justices Velmurugan and M. Jothiraman, the defence sought recusal of Justice Velmurugan, alleging bias.

The judge refused, stating that the Bench could not be “blackmailed” into recusal and asserting that he had never recused from hearing any case in his judicial career spanning over two decades.

After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, the Bench reserved orders, which are scheduled to be pronounced on January 23.

–IANS

aal/dan