Today, On 30th August, Chief Justice of India (CJI) hearing a case against YouTuber Savukku Shankar for making derogatory remarks about women police officers. The case has drawn attention due to the nature of the comments, which have been widely criticized for being offensive and inappropriate. The legal proceedings will examine whether Shankar’s statements constitute defamation or violate any laws regarding hate speech.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India currently hearing a significant case involving Savukku Shankar, a prominent YouTuber and independent journalist from Tamil Nadu.
Shankar faces multiple FIRs related to comments he made during an interview with the YouTube channel RedPix 24×7 on April 30, 2024. In the interview, Shankar allegedly made derogatory remarks about women police officers in Tamil Nadu, accusing them of compromising with senior male officers for favourable postings and transfers. This led to a slew of legal actions against him, including at least 16 FIRs filed across various districts.
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, responded hearing the matter.
While Hearing CJI asked,
“You were granted bail in all 15 FIRs, yet another FIR has been lodged against you. Why haven’t you approached the High Court?”
Senior Advocate Balaji Srinivasan responded,
“Tamil Nadu is responsible for 51% of all preventive detainees in India, which illustrates the rampant misuse of the detention laws in the state. I am contesting the detention order, but the High Court has delayed my case due to a significant backlog of cases.”
During the proceedings, the Chief Justice inquired,
“Why can’t you approach the High Court to quash these FIRs? How can we address this issue here?”
In response, Senior Advocate Srinivasan explained,
“High Court is taking a considerable amount of time to address the matter. “
The Chief Justice, however, emphasized that delays in the High Court cannot be a valid reason for the Supreme Court to intervene at this stage.
Earlier, sharply criticized the Tamil Nadu government for its repeated detentions of YouTuber Savukku Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers, and Video Pirates Act of 1982, commonly known as the TN Goondas Act.
This criticism arose in the context of a legal challenge filed by Shankar’s mother, A. Kamala, contesting an August 12 detention order issued under the same act. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, responded swiftly by issuing a notice to the State after hearing arguments from advocate Balaji Srinivasan and his team, who argued that the detention order was “completely absurd, non-reasoned, and blatantly illegal.”
Srinivasan pointed out that this was the second detention order issued against Shankar within just three days after the Madras High Court had quashed the first one. The Supreme Court also took into consideration Shankar’s appeal against the registration of 16 FIRs across Tamil Nadu, where he has been labelled as a “drug offender.”
Shankar initially arrested on May 4, 2024, under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act a stringent law typically used for preventive detention of individuals considered a threat to public order.
This arrest has been widely perceived as an attempt to silence Shankar, who is known for his outspoken views against corruption within the Tamil Nadu government and its officials. His lawyer argued that these actions by the state are not just prosecutorial but are aimed at persecuting Shankar to prevent him from exercising his right to freedom of speech.
The Supreme Court has taken a strong stance in this matter. On multiple occasions, it has questioned the Tamil Nadu government’s repeated attempts to keep Shankar detained. For instance, after the Madras High Court quashed his detention on August 9, Shankar was re-arrested just three days later on new charges under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, alleging possession of ganja. The Supreme Court intervened again, granting Shankar interim relief by staying any coercive action in all the FIRs filed against him, expressing concern over the state’s apparent vendetta against him.
The Court’s hearings have been marked by sharp questioning of the state’s motives, with the bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud highlighting the importance of protecting individual liberties against misuse of preventive detention laws. The case continues to be closely watched, as it raises critical issues about freedom of speech, the limits of state power, and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional rights.
This case is emblematic of the tensions between government authorities and independent media voices in India, and its outcome could have significant implications for the future of free speech and civil liberties in the country.
Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Mukul Rohatgi represent the State of Tamil Nadu in the ongoing legal proceedings, while Senior Advocate Balaji Srinivasan is defending Savukku Shankar.