Today(on 9th August),The Madras High Court annulled the detention of YouTuber Savukku Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, commonly known as the Goondas Act. This decision provides significant relief for Shankar, who has faced multiple legal issues due to his outspoken views.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: Today(on 9th August), The Madras High Court annulled the detention of YouTuber Savukku Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, which is often referred to as the Goondas Act. The court’s decision comes as a major relief for the controversial YouTuber, who has been embroiled in a series of legal battles due to his outspoken views.
The decision was delivered by a bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam, who meticulously examined the habeas corpus petition filed by Shankar’s mother, Kamala. The bench found substantial grounds to question the legitimacy of Shankar’s detention, particularly in the context of constitutional rights and freedom of expression.
The court declared-
“We have addressed concerns regarding malice, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, which are critical at this moment. The habeas corpus petition is granted. The detention order is overturned, and the detainee is to be released immediately, unless he is required for any other legal proceedings.”
Grounds for Detention
The origins of this legal tussle trace back to May of this year, when Shankar was taken into preventive custody by the Tamil Nadu Police. The arrest followed accusations that Shankar had made defamatory remarks against women during an interview with another YouTuber, Felix Jerald. These comments were deemed serious enough to warrant his detention under the stringent provisions of the Goondas Act, which allows for preventive detention without trial.
Kamala, Shankar’s mother, promptly challenged this preventive detention in court, arguing that the detention was not only excessive but also violated her son’s fundamental rights. The case, which has seen a series of legal twists, had already been under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, which had temporarily released Shankar until the Madras High Court made a final ruling on Kamala’s petition.
ALSO READ: Justice Swaminathan Acted “Hastily” in Youtuber Savukku Shankar Case: Madras HC Justice Jayachandran
The Madras High Court proceedings were far from straightforward. On May 24, 2023, a vacation bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and PB Balaji delivered a split verdict on Shankar’s detention. Justice Swaminathan, in a move that sent shockwaves through the legal community, declared that Shankar’s detention was illegal and set it aside. He notably remarked in open court that-
“Two high-ranking individuals visited him and warned him against issuing the orders.”
This statement hinted at possible external pressures influencing the judicial process.
In contrast, Justice Balaji chose not to pass any immediate order, suggesting that the police should be given the opportunity to file a counter affidavit before the matter could be decided on its merits. This divergence in judicial opinion necessitated the transfer of the case to a regular bench that handles habeas corpus petitions.
However, the complications did not end there. The case was subsequently assigned to another bench comprising Justices MS Ramesh and Sunder Mohan. This bench, too, recused itself from the case. The recusal was a response to allegedly objectionable comments made by Kamala in a transfer petition she had filed before the Supreme Court. Although Kamala had withdrawn the petition by the time this bench began hearing the matter, the judges chose to step down from the case to maintain impartiality.
The Final Verdict
Ultimately, the case was assigned to the current bench led by Justice SM Subramaniam. After a thorough examination of the case, the bench ruled in favor of Shankar’s release. The court’s decision is seen as a reaffirmation of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution, particularly regarding freedom of speech and the press.
