The Madras High Court on Monday delivered a sharp rebuke to attempts at stalling judicial proceedings based on "apprehensions of bias."

A Division Bench comprising Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice M. Jothiraman orally remarked that the judiciary is concerned with the integrity of the system, not the subjective fears of individuals. The observation came during the hearing of an application filed by the State Police seeking to cancel the interim bail granted to YouTuber-journalist A. Shankar (alias Savukku Shankar).

When the matter was taken up, the counsel representing Kamala (Shankar's mother and the original petitioner) informed the Bench that they intended to file an application raising an "apprehension of bias" against the judges. Essentially, the party sought to have the matter heard by a different bench.

The Court’s Response: The Bench refused to pause the proceedings or wait for the outcome of any such administrative application to the Chief Justice.

"We are not concerned about individual apprehension. We are only concerned about the system… We can't run the court for people who are apprehending something."

The Judges made it clear that unless there is a specific order from the Chief Justice transferring the case, they would proceed with the hearing. They emphasized that a mere allegation or fear of bias is not a ground for recusal or adjournment.

The core issue before the Court is the State's move to revoke the interim bail granted to Savukku Shankar on December 26, 2025, by a vacation bench.

Grounds for Bail: Shankar was granted relief for three months primarily on medical grounds, with the court noting his serious health issues and the multiple cases filed against him curtailing his liberty.
State’s Argument: The police now argue that Shankar has violated the conditions of his bail. They claim he is not undergoing medical treatment (the very basis of his release) and is instead misusing his liberty to threaten witnesses and interfere with the investigation into the extortion case against him.

The respondent's counsel also raised a technical objection, arguing that since Shankar is now out on bail, a fresh notice should have been issued directly to him, rather than just to his mother’s counsel.

The Court dismissed this argument, noting that the bail cancellation application was filed in the pending writ petition moved by his mother.

"It is a pending case... The counsel has to intimate that the opposite party has made such applications. If the party wants, let him come and get himself impleaded. Why should we give the notice to him?"

The Court has directed the respondent to file a counter-affidavit by tomorrow, signaling its intent to decide the matter swiftly.