On Thursday, the Supreme Court provided interim relief to YouTuber Savukku Shankar. He has been under preventive detention by the Tamil Nadu police for over two months. The Court also instructed the Madras High Court to expedite the decision on the habeas corpus petition. It is filed by Shankar’s mother.
The Supreme Court was addressing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Madras High Court’s decision. This was to adjourn the habeas corpus plea challenging Shankar’s detention. The High Court had previously stated that the plea would be heard in due course.
During the hearing, Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah questioned the necessity of Shankar’s preventive detention, emphasising the importance of personal liberty. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the State, accused Shankar of fabricating a document that incited public protests. The bench, however, noted that the protests were due to insufficient public transportation, not Shankar’s actions.
Arguments
Luthra also mentioned a contempt case initiated by the Madras High Court against Shankar for making disparaging comments about judges. The Supreme Court questioned the relevance of this in the context of preventive detention, focusing instead on Article 21 and personal liberty.
Justice Dhulia criticised the argument that Shankar delayed his appeal, noting that Shankar had been in detention and could not approach the court sooner. Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Shankar, requested the Supreme Court to hear the case, but Luthra argued that the High Court should handle it.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court granted interim relief to Shankar, urging the Madras High Court to prioritise the case. The Court acknowledged that delays in the case were not Shankar’s fault and ordered his release until the High Court makes a decision.
Observation
The Court noted that both parties would request the Chief Justice or the appropriate bench to expedite the hearing early next week. It also clarified that this order pertains solely to the preventive detention matter and does not impact other charges against Shankar.
Shankar had also petitioned the Supreme Court to transfer the habeas corpus plea to itself, but he withdrew this request.
Savukku Shankar was arrested on May 4 by Coimbatore police following a complaint by a woman journalist. He was accused of making defamatory remarks against women police officers and charged under multiple sections of the IPC, the Tamil Nadu Harassment of Woman (Prevention) Act, and the Information Technology Act. Additional cases were filed by the Chennai City CCD police.
In May, a vacation bench of the Madras High Court delivered a split verdict on Shankar’s habeas corpus petition. Justice GR Swaminathan sought to annul the detention order. Justice PB Balaji wanted more time for the police to respond. Moreover, Justice Swaminathan claimed high-ranking officials had pressured him not to finalise the petition.
Later, Justice G Jayachandran, appointed as the third judge, sided with Justice Balaji, arguing that Justice Swaminathan had acted hastily. He directed the matter to the regular bench. This stated it could only hear the plea in chronological order and adjourned the case. This adjournment led to the current SLP before the Supreme Court.
