Today, On 6th June, The Madras High Court deemed the split verdict in the Savukku Shankar case an anomaly, stating Justice GR Swaminathan should have recused himself. Justice G Jayachandran referred the case to a regular division bench responsible for all habeas corpus petitions.
Tamil Nadu: The Madras High Court said that the previous split verdict delivered by a Division Bench ,an “aberration” and went against legal principles.
Justice G Jayachandran, who appointed as the third judge to hear the matter after the split verdict, has now referred the case to a regular Division Bench of the Madras High Court that handles all habeas corpus petitions.
Justice Jayachandran also formulated two points of reference for the new Division Bench, comprising Justices MS Ramesh and M Sundar, to decide on the matter.
This ruling overturns the previous split verdict and sends the habeas corpus petition filed by Savukku Shankar‘s mother back to a new Division Bench for a fresh consideration, indicating that the court views the earlier split verdict as flawed and needing further review.
The two questions are:
- Can a Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP) be resolved without allowing the respondents to submit a counter affidavit?
- Should a judge’s decision based on merits, contrasted with another judge’s refusal to issue orders due to missing documents, be considered a full judgment or merely an opinion?
Notably, the single judge observed that Justice GR Swaminathan, who had been part of the vacation bench that previously heard the case, should have recused himself. This is because he openly stated in court that certain individuals had approached him in an attempt to influence him.
On May 24 of this year, a vacation bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and PB Balaji delivered a split verdict.
Justice Swaminathan declared Shankar‘s detention illegal and nullified it. In open court, he also mentioned that two influential individuals had visited him, cautioning him against issuing orders.
Conversely, Justice Balaji did not issue any orders, expressing that, in his view, the TN police should be allowed to submit a counter affidavit before the matter could be decided on its merits.
On Thursday, in response to an ultimatum from Justice Jayachandran, the TN police filed its counter affidavit opposing the HCP.
Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran, representing the police, and Senior Counsel S. Prabakaran, representing the de facto complainant Veeralakshmi, argued against quashing Shankar‘s detention, describing him as a habitual offender.
The lawyers highlighted that since May 24, there had been a disagreement between the two judges, with no conclusive order issued. They suggested that the case should now be addressed by a Division Bench assigned to handle Habeas Corpus Petitions (HCP).
In contrast, Senior Counsel John R. Sathyan, representing Shankar’s mother, criticized the involvement of five judges in the case, calling it a futile exercise and a waste of judicial resources.
Initially, Justice Jayachandran stressed that the Tamil Nadu police should not delay and must file the counter affidavit promptly. However, he later admitted that the vacation bench‘s order had been inappropriate.
Furthermore, he mentioned that if certain individuals had approached Justice Swaminathan in his chambers to discuss the case, the judge should have recused himself from the proceedings.
Justice Jayachandran stated,
“This appears to be the first instance in judicial history where one judge on a division bench has issued a ruling on the merits of a case while his fellow judge declined to make a decision, citing insufficient documentation. Such a scenario cannot be deemed a proper order; it is an anomaly and does not serve the interests of justice,”
The judge expressed sorrow over the developments in the case. This included the delay by the Tamil Nadu police in submitting their counter affidavit, as well as Justice Swaminathan passing orders without waiting for the counter affidavit, despite being aware that his fellow judge, Justice PB Balaji, had stated that the lack of the counter affidavit was a hindrance and he could not issue any orders.
Read Also: YouTuber Assaulted in Judicial Custody | HC Seeks Health Report on Savukku Shankar
Justice Jayachandran remarked,
“I am saddened by this. The court should conduct itself as a court. We need to bring this matter to a close. We are addressing an individual’s fundamental rights, and we must adhere to the rule of law,”
The judge emphasized that all legal representatives must be “faithful to the law,” regardless of “who is in a position of power”.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
