Today, On 6th August, In the Savukku Shankar case, the Madras High Court questioned the State, asking, “How many have you arrested for telling lies on TV?” The Court inquired about the impact of Shankar’s comments on public order as it reserved its decision today.
Chennai: The Madras High Court, On Tuesday, scrutinized the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to detain YouTuber Savukku Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act.
A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam expressed concern about the spread of false news and questioned whether the state had been selective in Shankar’s detention.
The Court inquired if the State had been equally vigilant in pursuing others who spread false news, challenging the justification for Shankar’s detention on these grounds.
Justice Subramaniam remarked,
“How many people are telling lies on TV channels and media? Have you arrested in all such similar cases? All the YouTubers arrested? All similar cases, where some information is provided on corruption or something, have you arrested? How many persons? Is it possible for the government to run behind all such persons spreading false news? How did Savukku Shankar’s comments affect public order? We are disturbed because people giving false news is most commo. You have rightly registered a case. You proceed with the trial. Get him convicted, we are not standing in the waY. (But) You cannot strangulate freedom of speech,”
The Court hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Shankar’s mother, Kamala, challenging her son’s preventive detention. Shankar recently released from detention by the Supreme Court until Kamala’s plea is finally decided by the High Court. Kamala’s counsel argued that Shankar’s detention was malicious, while the State contended that Shankar detained for making repeated derogatory statements.
The State also mentioned that Shankar had been previously imprisoned for contempt of court and released on the condition that he would refrain from making such remarks, a condition he allegedly continued to violate.
The State counsel maintained,
“Your lordships are dealing with a person who will never stop. We have prevented,”
The Court responded,
“How long will you prevent?”
The Bench clarified that it does not condone derogatory statements reportedly made by Shankar against policewomen. The State also submitted that Shankar used a forged document to allege corruption in the award of a tender for a bus stand, which triggered protests and affected public order. However, the Bench expressed doubts about whether these actions justified invoking the Goondas Act.
Justice Subramaniam remarked,
“It is the (individual) person who views YouTube. Some may see, others may say it is improper. It is the person who chooses. Take TV channels, each political party is having their channel. Can you say they are neutral? No Debates are going on in TV channels. So many persons participate, including retired judges. Can you say the debates are truth and truth alone?”
The judge added that he was not inclined to hold Shankar’s previous contempt of court conviction against him.
He said,
“We are not supposed to have any opinion on previous conduct. We have to decide on merits,”
Justice Subramaniam praised Justice GR Swaminathan for maintaining impartiality in Shankar’s case, despite having previously sentenced him for contempt.
Read Also: [Savukku Shankar Interview Case] Madras HC Refuses Bail to YouTuber G Felix Gerald
He said,
“Whatever (contempt) conviction happened is not relevant. Equally, we have to appreciate that the same judge (who sentenced Shankar in the contempt case) granted relief to him (in the split verdict). That shows his uprightness and neutral way of looking at things. We should appreciate Justice Swaminathan. He has boldly said this detention is wrong,”
As the hearing concluded, the Court advised the State to focus on eradicating corruption rather than using preventive detention laws against dissenters, warning that such actions could signal a regression to colonial times. Orders have been reserved in the matter.