On Friday(26th July),The Madras High Court bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan has recused itself from A. Kamala’s habeas corpus plea challenging her son Savukku Shankar’s detention under the Goondas Act. The recusal follows Kamala’s remarks against the bench in a Supreme Court petition, highlighting concerns over freedom of speech and judicial independence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: On Friday(26th July),The Madras High Court bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan has recused itself from hearing the habeas corpus plea filed by A. Kamala, the mother of YouTuber Savukku Shankar, who is challenging his detention under the Goondas Act. The judges referred the matter to another bench due to remarks made by Kamala against the current bench in a transfer petition filed with the Supreme Court. This case has garnered significant attention because of the contentious nature of Shankar’s detention and its broader implications for freedom of speech and judicial independence in Tamil Nadu.
Savukku Shankar, a well-known political commentator famous for his outspoken views, was detained under the Goondas Act, a preventive detention law that permits authorities to detain individuals without trial for up to one year. Shankar’s detention has ignited widespread debate and raised serious concerns about the use of such laws against government critics.
Initially, a bench of the High Court was set to hear the habeas corpus petition challenging Shankar’s detention. However, two judges have since recused themselves from the case. While the reasons for their recusal have not been disclosed, such actions typically indicate potential conflicts of interest or concerns about impartiality.
The petitioners advocating for Shankar’s release argue that his detention violates his fundamental rights, particularly his right to free speech. They assert that the Goondas Act is being misused to silence dissenting voices and that Shankar’s critical commentary should not be grounds for preventive detention.
“His detention under the Goondas Act represents a blatant abuse of power intended to silence his voice.”
-said one of Shankar’s advocates.
This law is being used selectively against those who dare to speak out against the government.
Supporters of Shankar have organized protests and social media campaigns demanding his release.
“Freedom of speech is a fundamental pillar of democracy, and we must prevent it from being undermined by harsh laws.”
-stated a prominent activist.
ALSO READ: Justice Swaminathan Acted “Hastily” in Youtuber Savukku Shankar Case: Madras HC Justice Jayachandran
The case holds broader implications for freedom of speech and the application of preventive detention laws in India. Critics argue that such laws are frequently employed to target political opponents and suppress dissent, thereby undermining democratic principles.
“Preventive detention laws such as the Goondas Act should be applied sparingly and only when there is a clear and imminent threat to public order.”
-commented a legal expert.
Using these laws against individuals for their political views sets a dangerous precedent.
With the recusal of the two judges, the case will now be reassigned to a new bench. It remains to be seen how the High Court will handle the habeas corpus petition and whether Savukku Shankar will be granted relief.
“The judiciary is essential in maintaining the rule of law and safeguarding individual rights.”
– noted a senior lawyer.
