'Killing a mosquito using a pounder': Retired judge K Chandru appeals to HC judges to release ‘Savukku’ Shankar

Shankar, a popular political commentator, was sentenced to six months imprisonment for calling judiciary corrupt

Equating the six months imprisonment awarded to whistleblower ‘Savukku’ Shankar in a suo motu contempt proceedings by the Madras High Court for his comments on higher judiciary with using a “pounder to kill a mosquito”, retired Justice K Chandru has appealed to the judges to recall the order voluntarily and order the activist’s release.

In a three-page opinion piece in Junior Vikatan, a bi-weekly Tamil political magazine, justice Chandru, who is known for speaking his mind, said only pardoning Shankar, a former employee of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption (DVAC), for his comments would enhance the pride of judiciary and that ‘tit for tat’ is not the solution.

Shankar, also a popular political commentator and a regular on Tamil YouTube channels, was sentenced to six months regular imprisonment by Justices G R Swaminathan and B Pugalendhi on September 15 for his comments that “the entire higher judiciary is riddled with corruption.” He is now lodged at the Central prison in Cuddalore, 175 km from Chennai.

The bench, while sentencing Shankar to six months simple imprisonment, also directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to ensure that the “offending interviews” and article are taken down forthwith.

Justice Chandru’s article comes amidst wide-spread criticism of the judgment in the contempt case from politicians across the board who said the six months imprisonment to Shankar was a blow to “freedom of speech” guaranteed under the Constitution.

Talking about constant criticism from several quarters that besides snatching the freedom of speech the Contempt of Courts Act is being used by the judiciary as a shield to protect them, justice Chandru also referred to the demands that the powers vested with the courts to register criminal defamation cases should be revoked.

“It is in these circumstances that Savukku Shankar has been punished for his comments made in a YouTube interview by justices G R Swaminathan and N Pugalendhi. Shankar has the opportunity to appeal against this order in the Supreme Court under Section 19. It is shocking that the judges did not invoke the powers vested with them to suspend the sentencing till he (Shankar) goes for an appeal,” he wrote in the article.

When the punishment awarded by a court is not final and there is a provision to appeal against the order, it is ideal to suspend the sentence.

“Else it is just like how police arrest a person over the weekend deliberately to keep him behind the bars for two days. There is not much difference between the two,” the retired judge said.

Talking in detail about earlier instances where punishments have been awarded to people for contempt, justice Chandru said punishments are awarded to people in the hope of reforming them and bringing them to the mainstream.

“The courts can enhance the pride of the judiciary only by pardoning people and not punishing them. Invoking powers vested with them just because some people talk ill (about judiciary) is akin to killing a mosquito using a pounder. There is still time. It will be best if the judges come forward voluntarily to withdraw the sentencing awarded to Shankar and releasing him from jail,” justice Chandru, who cleared 90,000 cases during his tenure, concluded.