Factual Background 

In the Matter Senthil Balaji v A Shankar, Savukku Shankar violated the court’s order of interim injunction, which forbade him from making any disparaging remarks or videos about Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji, according to an application filed by Senthil Balaji seeking to take action against him under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis of Court Decision 

The Madras high court divisional judge bench of Justice Senthil Balaji and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu directed Savukku to pay Rs.1 Lakh to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. The court ruled that several social media uploads made after the injunction order were reposts of earlier uploads that could, at the very least, harm Senthil Balaji’s reputation. 

In Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. and Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand, the Court held that the Savukku had violated the order with the intent to disobey it and should be punished. The Court additionally believed that Savukku should change his ways in court proceedings because his actions had no regard for the Court’s majesty. Thus, within four weeks of the date of this ruling, the court ordered Savukku to pay Rs. 100,000 to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. The Court further ordered Savukku to submit an affidavit of undertaking, promising that in the future he would take care not to disobey any orders issued by any Court or utter any remarks that would diminish the authority of the Courts.