Chennai, Jan 21 (NationPress) The Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, firmly criticized a senior lawyer on Wednesday for alleging judicial bias against a serving judge during discussions on a criminal case involving YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar.

These statements were made as the counsel presented his case before the first Division Bench, which included the Chief Justice and Justice G. Arul Murugan, regarding claims that Justice P. Velmurugan exhibited bias against his client while the Greater Chennai City Police sought to cancel interim bail.

In response to these claims, the Chief Justice asserted that any judicial decision made by a court should be contested through legally established processes, such as appeals.

“Any order can be appealed. Refrain from using court proceedings to engage in mudslinging against judges,” he advised the lawyer, expressing disappointment that a legal professional with 39 years of experience would present such allegations before another Bench.

Upon learning that the Division Bench led by Justice Velmurugan had already reserved judgment on the bail cancellation request on January 20, the Chief Justice stated that any potentially adverse decisions could only be challenged according to the law.

“This is not the appropriate venue for such allegations. We will not allow the misuse or abuse of court proceedings,” he cautioned, adding that such remarks could not be made before the first Division Bench on the judicial side.

The matter arose from the interim bail granted in December 2025 to YouTuber Savukku Shankar by a Christmas vacation Bench consisting of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and P. Dhanabal.

This relief was granted after the court was informed that the accused, who is facing 17 criminal cases, has serious health issues as a cardiac and diabetic patient, which the police had repeatedly curtailed.

Following the vacation, the Greater Chennai City Police approached the High Court to seek the cancellation of the interim bail, arguing that the health concerns presented to the court were overstated.

The police also highlighted that Shankar had been consistently uploading videos post-release and accused him of threatening victims and witnesses in some ongoing cases.

In one video, he allegedly referred to the investigating officer in an extortion case as a murderer. When the bail cancellation petition was discussed on January 19 by a Division Bench that included Justices Velmurugan and M. Jothiraman, the defense requested Justice Velmurugan's recusal, alleging bias.

The judge denied the request, asserting the Bench would not be “blackmailed” into recusal and confirmed that he has never recused himself from a case in his two-decade-long judicial career.

After comprehensive arguments from both sides, the Bench reserved orders, expected to be delivered on January 23.