Chennai, Sep 21 (IANS): The Madras High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for the constitution of a special bench to hear cases related to YouTubers, journalists and other activists.

The first division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Acting Chief Justice D. Krishnakumar and Justice P.B. Balaji dismissed the PIL petition filed by S. Muralidharan.

The court while dismissing the petition on Saturday held that no person had the right to invoke the writ jurisdiction and seek a direction to constitute a special bench.

“The relief sought in the PIL has the undertones of commanding a direction from a Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice on the judicial side to the Chief Justice on the administrative side to constitute a special bench,” the bench observed.

The petitioner, S. Muraleedharan, who argued the case in person had claimed that the state government had been gagging journalists, particularly YouTubers, who act as whistleblowers and expose scams committed by those in power.

He cited the cases booked against ‘Savukku’ Shankar and others.

The petitioner told the court that social media adds strength to the fourth pillar of democracy even though its content and lingo could be “toxic” at times.

He prayed for a direction to constitute a special bench to fast-track the hearing of cases related to journalists, YouTubers, and other activists.

However senior counsel P.M. Subramaniam, representing the High Court’s Registrar General, said the Chief Justice was the master of the roster who had the prerogative to constitute benches and allocate portfolios on the administrative side, and no such judicial direction could be issued to them.

On the basis of the submission by the Senior Counsel, Subramanian, Division Bench said a Chief Justice enjoys the special status of being the first among the equals (all other judges) on the judicial side of a High Court but having the entire control of the High Court on the administrative side.

“No person has a right to invoke the writ jurisdiction seeking a direction to constitute a Special Bench. It is for the Chief Justice to consider the grievance of the petitioner on the administrative side, and the same can neither be espoused nor redressed by way of a public interest litigation,” the bench said.

The court observed that entertaining cases of the present nature would pave the way for other sections of the society too to approach the court for the constitution of special benches.

“Encouraging litigations of this nature will also lead to the litigant choosing who should decide their case,” the bench said.

“It is a well-settled proposition of law that public interest litigation is a crucial tool for promoting social justice and holding authorities accountable. However, the instant petition can be labelled as a waste of time as it lacks specific details or particulars regarding the grievance sought to be addressed,” it added.