Supreme Court refused to interfere with bail conditions imposed by the Madras High Court on YouTuber-journalist Savukku Shankar, upholding interim bail in an assault and extortion case, as Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma declined intervention petition proceedings.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the bail conditions set by the Madras High Court for YouTuber and journalist Savukku Shankar while upholding his interim bail relating to accusations of assault and extortion by a film producer.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, opted not to challenge the Madras High Court’s decision.
The Madras High Court had previously refused to cancel Shankar’s interim bail, emphasizing that video journalists must adhere to high ethical standards to preserve public trust and credibility.
Justice Datta remarked,
“After going out on bail, you are treated as an outpatient… and thereafter, you start making reels and videos and other things, place it on YouTube… That was not the purpose of the grant of bail. You are misusing your liberty. That is the finding given by the High Court… Now, your bail has not been cancelled… What the High Court has said is that you don’t talk about the pending complaint… You are doing that… The High Court has showed in so many words that you are doing that.”
Arguments of Parties:
Advocate Balaji argued that Shankar experienced medical negligence while in custody. He mentioned that on December 18, 2025, Shankar developed a fever and was taken to Saidapet Government Hospital. Although an initial ECG indicated anomalies that warranted a transfer to a higher facility due to Shankar’s cardiac history, this medical advice was abruptly altered twenty minutes later. Balaji expressed concerns about the credibility of government medical professionals, stating they ultimately declared Shankar fit despite ongoing health issues.
In contrast, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Luthra, representing the police, contended that Shankar had misused the liberty granted by his interim bail. Luthra pointed out that even while claiming illness, Shankar did not follow up with medical treatment at the hospitals he visited but instead focused on creating social media reels and videos.
Luthra noted,
“He comes out on this medical bail and goes on YouTube and says, here is the mobile phone… This is the mobile the police are looking for… He does not go to the hospital for treatment.”
Justice Sharma commented,
“Because he was busy making reels and all.”
Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Consolidation of Multiple FIRs Against YouTuber Savukku Shankar
Justice Datta added that if the bail was granted on medical grounds, it was not intended for Shankar to spend his time making videos. The court suggested that, if Shankar were genuinely as unwell as alleged, he should have shown more restraint.
Consequently, the Court endorsed an independent health evaluation by a Medical Board at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to objectively assess Shankar’s condition.
Ultimately, the Bench opted not to interfere in a manner that would favor Shankar’s current position.
When Advocate Balaji attempted to withdraw the modification application, the Court refused, affirming that the medical evaluation would serve the interests of justice and ensure that the concession of interim bail was not misused on dubious grounds.
Factual Background of the Case:
Shankar was arrested on December 13, 2025, for offences under Sections 296(b), 353(1)(c), 308(5), 61(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and was remanded to judicial custody. The respondent, Shankar’s mother, sought interim bail, arguing that her son suffered from serious cardiac issues, diabetes, and hypertension, necessitating specialized medical treatment. Acknowledging the medical condition presented and considering the repeated restrictions on personal liberty, the Court granted him interim bail for 12 weeks, subject to strict conditions.
The High Court noted,
“Condition (IV) of the interim bail order dated 26.12.2025 expressly stipulated that the respondent’s son shall not interact with any witnesses or attempt to hamper, influence, or tamper with them in the criminal cases. Despite this clear restriction, the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor demonstrate that this condition has been materially violated. The respondent’s son concealed the mobile phone alleged to have been used to threaten the complainant, provided false information regarding the same after being released on interim bail, and publicly displayed the phone on YouTube and other media. In addition, he forcibly took A3/Nithish Kumar during an ongoing inquiry without the knowledge of the Investigating Officer. These actions obstructed the investigation, intimidated potential witnesses, and constitute a deliberate breach of the interim bail conditions dated 26.12.2025.”
Also Read: Dalit Welfare Scheme: SC Orders Madras HC to Hear Savukku Shankar’s PIL Seeking CBI Probe
The High Court ruled that due process of law cannot be exploited to target individuals who have fallen out of favor with the State Government, and the repeated limitation of personal liberty in such contexts constitutes an abuse of legal process. The Madras High Court expressed serious concern over the ongoing incarceration of an individual engaged in voicing dissent through digital media. The Bench highlighted that the history of successive detention orders and criminal cases raises suspicion about the potential misuse of law enforcement mechanisms.
It Stated,
“this is highly unusual where the same individual has been subject to two detention orders,”
The Bench further remarked that,
“this raises serious questions as to whether there has been any abuse of the process of law on the part of the State Government’s Law Enforcement Agency.”
Advocate Balaji Srinivasan represented the petitioner, while Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for the respondents.
Case Title: A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The State of Tamil Nadu [Diary No. 5538 of 2026]