You cannot blackmail the bench too, Madras High Court judge tells Savukku Shankar

Justice P. Velmurugan of the Madras High Court, on Monday (January 19, 2026), refused to recuse from hearing an application filed by the Greater Chennai Police to cancel the interim bail granted to YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar, though he had accused the judge of bias. The senior judge said: “You cannot blackmail the Bench too.”

Never recused: Judge

Presiding over a Division Bench along with Justice M. Jothiraman, the judge said, he had never 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 therefore, he would not recuse from Shankar’s case too.

On being informed by the YouTuber’s counsel that a petition had been filed by his client apprehending bias if the bail cancellation petition was heard and decided by the Bench presided over by Justice Velmurugan, the senior judge said: “You cannot indulge in forum shopping. I won’t entertain such petitions.”

‘Not afraid of anyone’

Making it clear it was up to the counsel to approach the Chief Justice and obtain administrative orders for shifting the case to some other Bench, the judge said: “As long as this case is before me, I will decide it as per law. We are least bothered about the comments that you make against the court.”

He went to state: “We are least bothered about individuals too. We don’t see the face of the individuals. We only read the papers, form opinion and pass orders. We are also not concerned about any particular blackmailer, we are only concerned about the institution…. I am not afraid of anyone. I have my own conscience.”

A Christmas vacation Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and P. Dhanabal had on December 27, 2025, granted the interim bail for three months to the YouTuber in connection with 17 criminal cases pending against him. The orders were passed on a petition filed by A. Kamala, the mother of the accused.

However, in the bail cancellation petition, the police accused the YouTuber of having obtained the interim bail on health grounds though he was not suffering from any major health issues. The police also accused him of threatening the victims and witnesses in the criminal cases pending against him.

On Monday, the YouTuber’s counsel contended the police ought to have made the YouTuber too as one of the respondents to the bail cancellation petition and served notice upon him without just serving the notice upon the counsel who represented his mother before the vacation Bench.

Not in agreement with such a stand, Justice Velmurugan asked: “When your mother obtained interim bail for you, did you say that you will not come out of the jail because you did not file any bail petition? Then, how can you now say that the notice on the bail cancellation petition should be served only upon you?”

Grounds for bail cancellation

The counsel also contended the bail was granted not only on health grounds but also because of repeated curtailment of the freedom of the individual by detaining him in multiple cases and the bail cancellation plea must be heard by the same Bench which granted the bail.

However, on finding that the counter affidavit, in response to the bail cancellation plea, had not been filed in the Registry, Justice Velmurugan’s bench granted time for filing the counter affidavit and ordered the bail cancellation petition must be listed for hearing again on Tuesday (January 20) afternoon.

“If you obtain administrative orders from the Chief Justice by then, we will not hear this case. Otherwise, we will pass orders on merits irrespective of the fact as to whether you file the counter affidavit or not,” the judge told the counsel.