Madras High Court sets aside Goondas Act invoked against whistleblower

Whistleblower and YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar was booked under the stringent Goondas Act after his arrest in a case relating to his comments on women police personnel in the state.

Chennai: Contending that preventive detention laws cannot be used to curb speeches when there is no disturbance to public order or security, the Madras High Court on Friday set aside the detention of whistleblower and YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar under the stringent Goondas Act after his arrest in a case relating to his comments on women police personnel.

The bench of justices S M Subramanian and V Sivagnanam ordered the release of Shankar, who is languishing in Coimbatore Central Prison since May this year, if he is not required in any other case. However, Shankar’s release is unlikely since over a dozen cases have been booked against him at various police stations across Tamil Nadu.

Days after Shankar’s arrest on May 4 for his derogatory comments on women police personnel in an interview to a YouTube channel, the Chennai Police had invoked the Goondas Act against him.

Coming down heavily on the DMK dispensation, the court said speeches criticising the ruling government, its policies, and actions or exposing corrupt or illegal actions in the public administration cannot in itself be termed as a threat to “public order”.

“Though the impugned detention order states that the acts committed by the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order the impugned order is devoid of reasons. Offences disclosed in the adverse cases and the ground case do not disclose any serious threat to public order and do not meet the threshold,” the judges said.

Observing that booking each and every person for spreading false information in the age of the internet is an “impossible exercise”, the judges said the threshold shall be to see if the publication of information causes any threat to public disorder.

“There are lakhs of people expressing their views in various forms across various mediums. If the state machinery starts hunting down each and every views and opinion, the voices will neither be brought down nor will this yield any viable result. A people's government as large as such should avoid engaging in such fruitless actions,” they added in their order.

The judges also said the duty of the state is much larger than engaging in legal battles to prevent such unacceptable opinions.

“A state going behind each and every social media post or YouTube video will not change anyone's views instead it will make the people feel stifled of their Right to Speech,” the judges said, adding that institutions like the state and its machinery shall impose restraint when taking legal course of action against its citizen.

They also said preventive detention laws cannot be used to curb speeches where there is no disturbance to public order or security of the state and that extreme care and caution is a pre-condition to invoke the clause and must not be used routinely to suppress fundamental rights of the citizens.

“In fine, we have arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the impugned order of detention is not in compliance with the essential requirement and ingredients as contemplated under Act 14 of 1982. Thus, the detention order is set aside,” the judges wrote in their judgment.