Supreme Court relief for Tamil Nadu YouTuber 'Savukku' Shankar, orders his interim release
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed release of Tamil Nadu's YouTuber Savukku Shankar on interim bail in a case of preventive detention.
The top court said he would be on interim bail till the Madras High Court decided the plea against his detention, while also observing that "somebody's liberty is involved."
Savukku has been in preventive detention by the state police under Goondas Act on the basis of an order issued on May 12, 2024.
After hearing the counsel of the parties, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah asked the Tamil Nadu government, "Do you sincerely believe that there should be preventive detention? This is not an ordinary civil dispute. This is preventive detention. Somebody's liberty is involved."
The matter emanated out of a habeas corpus petition filed by A Kamala, Shankar’s mother, challenging the wrongful detention of her son.
Her plea filed through advocate Balaji Srinivasan stated Shankar is well-known journalist on social media (YouTube), a social activist and a whistle-blower. He voiced his opinions about several wrongful and corrupt acts of the ruling party in the Government of Tamil Nadu, but in the process, has also exposed numerous scams and frauds committed by bureaucrats and politicians in the state.
She alleged that the TN government sought to curtail his freedom of speech and expression so that he could not challenge the current government.
Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madras High Court had quashed the detention order even without waiting for a counter affidavit to be filed by the detaining authority, whereas the other judge in the bench Justice P B Balaji decided to wait for the counter.
As there was a split verdict, the matter was referred to a third judge, Justice G Jayachandran, who, on June 6, 2024, ordered a fresh hearing.
Justice Swaminathan, in clear and unambiguous terms said in his order that “two highly placed persons met him in person and did not wish for him to test the detention order on merits”.
"There are various forces at play that wish to keep the detenue behind bars illegally and are ready to go to the extent of approaching a sitting Judge in an (unsuccessful) attempt to influence his judgment," he wrote.
The plea before the court contended, "What was shocking was that the umpire (third) judge made several defamatory and derogatory personal remarks (which were unfounded, unwarranted and extraneous) against the presiding judge. Not only did the umpire judge raise objectionable and unfounded allegations of bias against the presiding judge, but he also questioned his integrity."