Madras HC refuses to constitute special bench to hear cases against journalists, YouTubers
According to the petitioner S Muralidharan, the State has been gagging journalists, particularly YouTubers, who act as whistle blowers and expose scams committed by the persons in the power.
Madras High Court
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court rejected a plea to constitute a special bench to hear the cases against ‘public-spirited’ persons, referring to journalists and YouTubers, as it would lead to a situation where the litigants can decide on who to hear their case.
If the petition of this nature is entertained it will pave the way to other sections of the society seeking identical relief of constituting a special bench for redressal of their grievances, wrote the first division bench of acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji while dismissing the plea seeking the formation of a special bench.
According to the petitioner S Muralidharan, the State has been gagging journalists, particularly YouTubers. The petitioner contended that people who act as whistle-blowers and expose scams committed by powerful persons are being persecuted by the government. A special bench would ensure speedy justice for such ‘public-spirited’ persons at odds with the government, he argued. The petitioner sought the court to constitute a special bench to hear the cases against journalists and YouTubers for speedy disposal, asserting that social media adds strength to democracy.
The petitioner cited the arrest of Felix Gerald, the editor of Redpix 24/7 and Savukku Shankar, and termed them as victims of the State’s highhandedness for exposing corruption and mismanagement of the State machinery.
The bench wrote that the petitioner has failed to place substantial material to prove any existence of a huge backlog of cases pertaining to public-spirited individuals, journalists and YouTubers, owing to what the petitioner argued as highhandedness of the State.
Filing a public interest litigation with vague accusations and without any material evidence would lead to PILs losing their credibility and effectiveness as in this instant petition, the court said. It can be labelled as a waste of time as it lacks specific details or particulars regarding the grievance sought to be addressed, wrote the bench.
The petitioner argued that law and order in the State deteriorating, claiming easy availability of drugs, and an increase in custodial deaths. But the judges observed that making such statements without any iota of evidence couldn’t be entertained and dismissed the petition.
