Madras High Court Asks State To Consider Representation For Temporary Release Of Youtuber Savukku Shankar
The Madras High Court on Wednesday directed A Kamala, mother of Youtuber and whistle-blower Savukku Shankar to submit a representation to the State government for Shankar's temporary release for one month. The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the State had the authority to decide on the issue and it would be appropriate if the State decides the...
The Madras High Court on Wednesday directed A Kamala, mother of Youtuber and whistle-blower Savukku Shankar to submit a representation to the State government for Shankar's temporary release for one month.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the State had the authority to decide on the issue and it would be appropriate if the State decides the representation on merits.
“The court cannot step into the shoes of the authority. Since it is the prerogative of the State to grant leave, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to make a representation to the authority which shall then consider it on merits,” the court remarked orally.
The miscellaneous petition was filed in the Habeas Corpus petition challenging Shankar's detention under the TN Preventive Detention Act.
Cases were registered against Shankar for offences under Sections 294(b), 509, 354D, and 506 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Harassment of Women (Prevention) Act for his alleged offensive statements against women police officers. Following an adverse report from the Inspector of Police, the Commissioner of Police passed an order of detention against Shankar.
In May, a vacation bench had delivered a split verdict in the habeas corpus petition. While Justice GR Swaminathan wanted to set aside the detention order, Justice PB Balaji wanted to give more time for the police to file a counter. Following the split verdict, Justice G Jayachandran was nominated to be the third judge to decide the issue.
Siding with Justice Balaji, Justice Jayachandran observed that Justice Swaminathan had passed the order “hastily” without following the natural justice principle of audi altarem partem. Justice Jayachandran had thus directed the matter to be placed before the bench that dealt with habeas corpus cases.
When the matter was taken up on Wednesday, Additional Public Prosecutor Raj Tilak informed the court that the Advisory board was yet to give its opinion on the detention.
The court then said that it could take up the habeas corpus plea only in the regular course in the chronological order of date of detention. The court thus directed the registry to place the matter accordingly and adjourned the case.
Case Title: A Kamala v The State and Others
Case No: HCP 1163 of 2024