Madras High Court Seeks Status Report On Plea Seeking Inquiry By Retired HC Judge Into Protests In Savukku Shankar Case

The bench of Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq asked the police to file the status report by July 8, 2024. The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate ML Ravi seeking an inquiry by a retired judge of the High Court into the alleged protests and other details including who organized the protests, who brought the protestors to the court, and seeking to file an FIR against the protestors and organizers.

When the matter was taken up on Monday, the bench initially commented that the plea was merely a Publicity Interest Litigation. The State informed the court that the protesting mob was immediately dispersed and an inquiry was also conducted. The court then asked the state to file a status report on the inquiry.

Ravi submitted that after his remand, when Youtuber and Whistleblower Savukku Shankar was brought to a Madurai court in connection with an NDPS case, a crowd of women assembled at the venue, waiting with broomsticks and started shouting slogans and throwing broomsticks at Shankar. Ravi added that though police officials were present at the site, no action had been taken.

He added that when Shankar was produced at the Metropolitan Court, Egmore, a similar group of women were protesting with broomsticks and there the same at him. Even in this case, Ravi submitted that no police action had been taken.

Ravi further submitted that when these women were interviewed by television media as to what their intentions were, these women had responded by saying that they did not know the reason for the protests and had merely assembled on being asked by some persons. Ravi argued that this would raise suspicion on the police authorities and would tarnish their image.

Ravi pointed out that previously, when his party, the Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi had sought permission to protest in connection with the death of a student in Kallakurichi, the same was denied while in the present case, women had assembled in advance and were even throwing broomsticks at an individual accused when he was brought to the court. He argued that allowing these women to protest was an unjust, unlawful and colourable exercise of power by the police.

Ravi further submitted that Law enforcement officials were expected to respect the law and to the best of their ability, prevent and rigorously oppose any violation of law. Ravi added that though he had submitted representations, the same were not considered which prompted him to file the PIL.

Case Title: ML Ravi v Secretary and Others

Case No: WP 17176 of 2024