Madras High Court Sets Aside Detention Of Youtuber Savukku Shankar, Says There Was An Element Of Malice In Entire State Action

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam ordered Shankar to be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case. The court observed that the detention order passed by the State was not compliant with the essential requirements for invoking the Preventive Detention Act.

The court noted that there was an element of malice in the action taken by the State. The court observed that the State had moved with a prejudicial view in light of the publications made by Shankar against the Government and its officials.

“An element of malice in the entire action is traceable through the documents furnished for issuing the impugned order of detention. It is apparent that there is a prejudicial view about the publication made by the detenu through his M/s.Savukku media. The criticism made against the Government and its officials prompted them to invoke preventive detention to stop the detenu from publishing any such criticism, opinions about the Government or its officials,” the court observed.

The court added that though the detention order spoke about adverse cases, none of these offences disclosed a serious threat to public order that would necessitate invoking the preventive detention law. The court made it clear that the statements made by Shankar that were against certain individuals would not constitute a threat to public order.

“Allegation or remarks made against individuals cannot constitute a threat to 'Public Order'. There must be a real threat or apprehension of large scale disturbance in the society or amongst the people at large to invoke the term of 'Public Disorder'. This Court does not find merit in the Detention Order issued by the 2 nd respondent. Therefore there are serious doubts in the detention of the detenu in the present case as there is no sufficient ground to establish the breach of public order,” the court observed.

Shankar was detained under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act based on an adverse report from the Inspector of Police, Chennai City CCD. It was alleged that remarks made by Shankar had led to protests in the Kilambakkam Bus Terminus and had affected the public order. It was also alleged that in another adverse case, Shankar had allegedly made derogatory remarks against the police officers in the State.

Previously, a bench had recused from hearing the HCP after noting that Kamala had made 'unwarranted' remarks about the court proceedings and that continuing the proceedings before the bench would not be appropriate. Following this and a change in roster in the meantime, the matter was posted before the current bench.

While challenging the detention, Shankar's counsel C Iyyaparaj argued that public order was not affected as a result of Shankar's speech. It was submitted that though the State alleged that Shankar's video had led to protests in Kilambakkam Bus Terminus, the alleged video was posted one day after the protests. Thus, he contended that the order was passed without application of mind.

It was also argued that the order was passed without jurisdiction. He submitted that while the protests happened in Kilambakkan, it was the Tambaram Commissioner who could have taken action against Shankar and not the Commissioner of Greater Chennai. Shankar had also contended that he was not provided all the documents relied upon by the authorities while passing the detention order and that the representations made by Kamala against the detention were also not considered as per statute.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 306

Case Title: A Kamala v State and Others

Case No: HCP 1163 of 2024