“Men In Power Will Come And Go, But You Should Be Faithful To Court”: Madras High Court To Govt Advocates In Savukku Shankar's Case

“This court is not for some media persons report. We have to make sure that justice is done properly. Men in power may come and go, but you should be faithful to the court…We have to see whether there is an abuse of power. Whether there was a colorable exercise of power. The liberty of an individual is predominant. The spirit of the constitution is superior to your ego”, he told the Additional Advocate General representing the state.

To this, the AAG informed the court that the state was always faithful to the court and that the state had refrained from filing the counter only due to the peculiar facts of the case.

A Shankar, otherwise known as Savukku Shankar, was arrested by the Coimbatore police on May 4 based on a complaint by a woman journalist for making defamatory remarks against women police officers. Following an adverse report from the Inspector of Police, Chennai City CCD, the Commissioner of Police passed the order of detention against Shankar under the TN Preventive Detention Act.

Shankar's mother had challenged his detention, by way of a habeas corpus petition arguing that the order is devoid of merits and violative of Shankar's fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

In May, a vacation bench delivered a split verdict with Justice GR Swaminathan wanting to set aside the detention order passed against Shankar and Justice PB Balaji wanting to give more time for the police to file their counter. Following the split verdict, Justice G Jayachandran was appointed as the third judge to decide the issue.

Justice Jayachandran had, on Tuesday, directed the state to file a counter. When the matter was taken up today, the court strongly criticized the state for not filing the counter.

AAG J Ravindran submitted that the case was a peculiar one with peculiar facts. He added that in the present case, there was no vertical split verdict. He pointed out that since the court had already asked the state to file a counter, the opinion of Justice GR Swaminathan – of passing orders without a counter, would become a minority view, and as such the matter would have to be referred back to the division bench for further adjudication.

However, on the insistence of the court, the state filed by counter following which the case was taken up on merits and referred to the division bench.