madras high court

Madras High Court: In an applications filed by Tamil Nadu Minister V.Senthil Balaji seeking to initiate action against the YouTuber Savukku Shankar under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) as he had violated the order of interim injunction passed by the Court, wherein the Court has restrained him from making any derogatory statements and videos against Senthil Balaji, K. Kumaresh Babu, J. directed Savukku to pay Rs.1 Lakh to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

The previous application has been filed to grant an order of ad interim injunction restraining Savukku from marking, printing, publishing, broadcasting, disseminating or circulating the statements, articles, pictures, cartoons, caricatures, sketches, tweets and video, or its contents or any other defamatory statements, articles, pictures, cartoons, caricatures, sketches, tweets or videos which causes damage or tends to lower the reputation of Senthil Balaji on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook or in any other media.

Also read:

‘No one has right to disparage the reputation of another’; Madras High Court restrains YouTuber Savukku Sankar from making defamatory remarks against TN Minister V Senthil Balaji

The Court said that some of the uploads on the social media, after the order of injunction, were the repost of the earlier uploads which could prima facie affect the reputation of Senthil Balaji.

The Court placed reliance on Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd., (1997) 3 SCC 443 and Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 7 SCC 261, viewed that the Savukku has committed an act of wilful disobedience of the order and is liable to be punished.

The Court further viewed that Savukku should mend his ways in the proceedings before a Court, as his conduct was without any remorse impinging upon the majesty of the Court. Thus, the Court directed Savukku to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, within a period of four weeks from the day of this order.

Further, the Court directed Savukku to file an affidavit of undertaking, that in future he shall guard himself against violating any orders passed by any Court, or even make any comments which may impinge the majesty of the Courts.

[Senthil Balaji v A Shankar, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 3987, decided on 16-06-2023]

Must Watch

SCC Blog Guidelines

Justice BV Nagarathna

call recording evidence in court


One comment

  • Judgement by some courts are malafide , against public interest which we observed that supreme court reverse such judgement . But people needs to cautious as Indian law do not protect any person on the subject which are subjudice to court and all ministers uses that route to protect themselves with money . Law needs to rewrite to take out the anomaly so that CBI/ ED gets time to take into custody beyond 15 days.

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.