In an unexpected turn of events, a Madras High Court judge Today (May 24th) informed in open court that he was warned by two unknown persons to not hear a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of jailed YouTuber Savukku Shankar.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court disclosed in open court that he had been warned by two unidentified individuals not to hear a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of jailed YouTuber Savukku Shankar.
This startling admission came shortly before the Court delivered a split verdict on the petition.
Justice Swaminathan explained that he decided to proceed with the final hearing of the case despite requests from the Advocate General and the State police for additional time to file a counter.
He stated,
“‘Highly placed’ persons met me and told me not to take the HCP for final hearing. I am a judge of the Madurai Bench and I am presiding over the vacation Bench in Chennai only for a week. I would have failed in my constitutional duty had I not heard the matter. I had to thwart those persons’ plans. That is why, despite the AG’s opposition and others asking what the hurry was, I heard the HCP.”
The bench, comprising Justice Swaminathan and Justice PB Balaji, was hearing the plea from Shankar’s mother, who alleged that her son had been assaulted while in judicial custody at the Coimbatore Central Prison. Shankar was arrested earlier this month for allegedly making defamatory comments against women in an interview.
Today, the High Court Division Bench issued a split verdict on the legitimacy of a May 12 detention order against Shankar. Justice Swaminathan opined that the detention should be set aside, while Justice Balaji dissented, arguing that the police should have been given an opportunity to file a counter affidavit before the habeas corpus petition (HCP) was considered on its merits.
Justice Balaji stated,
“That is why I am dissenting.”
During the hearing, Senior Counsel S Prabakaran opposed the habeas corpus petition, questioning the urgency of the case and arguing against permitting a YouTuber to continually attack the judiciary, women in the subordinate judiciary, the police, and others.
“Why is there a tearing urgency in deciding the HCP?”
-he asked.
Despite these objections, the Court proceeded with the hearing and reserved the case for judgment shortly before lunch. At that time, Justice Swaminathan hinted at a forthcoming surprise in his order, saying,
“I will give the reason in black and white on why I am in a hurry to hear the HCP on merits.”
In the post-lunch session, Justice Swaminathan pronounced his view that Shankar’s detention should be quashed, revealing that he had been warned not to hear the case. He further observed that on May 12, when the detention order was issued, Shankar had been arrested in five cases and there was no imminent possibility of his release on bail. Yet, this fact had not been reflected in the detention order. The judge believed that Shankar’s detention could be quashed on this ground alone.
Justice Swaminathan commented,
“This is the first defect in the detention order which stuck to my mind when I read the papers last night and that the petitioner’s counsel ought to have attacked the detention order primarily on this ground.”
Since Justice Balaji dissented from this view, the matter will be placed before Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan, who will have to nominate a third judge to provide a tie-breaking opinion.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on YouTuber Savukku Shankar
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
