Today, On 12th June, Madras High Court will hear the habeas corpus petition for YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar’s release in due course. The court has also allowed Shankar’s mother, the petitioner, to request the state government for his temporary release for medical treatment.
Chennai: The Madras High Court‘s regular bench assigned to handle habeas corpus petitions on Wednesday stated that it would hear the petition filed by the mother of jailed YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar.
The petition sought the quashing of his detention under the Goondas Act and would be taken up in the regular course, following the convention of addressing habeas corpus petitions based on the oldest date of detention.
The court, however, granted the petitioner, Kamala (Shankar’s mother), permission to approach the state government for temporary medical release.
The habeas corpus petition filed by Kamala generated significant attention, as a vacation bench of two judges had differed in their decision on the case, and a third judge had made strong comments against the presiding judge’s decision on the vacation bench. After the case referred to the regular bench, it heard by the bench of Justices MS Ramesh and Sunder Mohan.
The bench stated,
“We adhere to the practice of addressing habeas corpus petitions in chronological order, starting with the oldest detention date. Therefore, we will not deviate from this practice.”
The court instructed the Registry to schedule the petition for final resolution in the ‘regular course’.
Nevertheless, the bench allowed the petitioner to request the state government for the temporary release of the detainee for medical treatment.
According to the law, the court adjourned the hearing by eight weeks.
Senior counsel John Sathyan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the detainee Shankar subjected to torture inside the prison, resulting in injuries and trauma.
Sathyan requested the court to issue an order to temporarily release Shankar for medical treatment.
However, Additional Public Prosecutor E Raj Thilak argued that the habeas corpus petition not maintainable because the petitioner had not availed the remedy available before the Advisory Committee for Goondas detention.
It is noteworthy that Shankar arrested by the Coimbatore city police on May 4, 2024, and subsequently arrested in several other cases registered in different districts for the charges of denigrating women police personnel and possession of ganja.
He detained under the Goondas Act following an order issued by the Greater Chennai Police Commissioner on May 12, 2024.
His mother challenged this detention order by filing a Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP) in the Madras High Court. The vacation bench, comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and PB Balaji, delivered a split verdict. Justice Swaminathan quashed the detention order, while Justice Balaji emphasized the need to grant the police additional time to present their case.
Subsequently, the petition referred to a third judge, Justice G Jayachandran, who remarked that Justice Swaminathan exhibited a ‘semblance of personal bias’ against state authorities in his decision to quash the detention order without providing a fair opportunity to the police and without consulting his co-judge.
Referring the matter to the regular division bench, Justice Jayachandran noted that the reasons cited by Justice Swaminathan, such as being approached by emissaries, for denying the State an opportunity were ‘more disturbing’ and rendered his findings ‘liable to be eschewed.’ This was due not only to the lack of concurrence with the junior judge’s opinion but also to the ‘semblance of personal bias’ against the respondent.
Describing the order of the vacation bench as a ‘unilateral opinion’ from one judge without the input of the companion judge, he criticized the lack of opportunity to file a counter, claiming that the bias and hasty order by Justice Swaminathan, without consulting the bench partner, renders his opinion void.
He further stated,
“The Latin maxim ‘Audi Alteram Partem’ (no one should be judged without a fair hearing) is a fundamental principle taught in law schools in all democratic nations. Issuing a rule nisi (show cause notice) in a Habeas Corpus Petition is intended to give the respondent a chance to justify the impugned detention order.”
As the hearing date approaches, the legal community and the general public will be awaiting the court’s decision with keen interest, recognizing its potential impact on the broader landscape of free speech and civil liberties in India.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
