Madras High Court Judges Recuse From Hearing Savukku Shankar Habeas Corpus Plea Citing His Mother's "Unwarranted" Remarks About Proceedings

The bench said that Kamala, in a petition seeking to transfer the HCP to the Supreme Court or any court of competent jurisdiction, had made 'unwarranted' remarks about the court proceedings. Therefore, the court opined that it would not be appropriate for the bench to continue hearing the matter.

“The manner in which the petitioner had remarked about our Court proceedings was, in our view, unwarranted. In this background, while expressing our anguish, we had informed the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that it would not be appropriate for us to continue hearing this petition,” the court observed.

The court thus asked the registry to place the matter before the Acting Chief Justice for obtaining necessary orders.

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. He has been charged with offenses under Sections 294 (b), 509, 354D, and 506 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Harassment of Woman (Prevention) Act and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Apart from this, cases have also been lodged by the Chennai City CCD police. Following an adverse report from the Inspector of Police, Chennai City CCD, the Commissioner of Police passed the order of detention against Shankar.

In May this year, division bench of the Madras High Court had previously 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 their counter.

Following this, the then Acting Chief Justice had appointed Justice G Jayachandran to resolve the split. Justice Jayachandran opined that the earlier order was passed without following the principles of natural justice of granting fair opportunity and thus directed the matter to be posted before the bench dealing with habeas corpus matters. The matter then came to be posted before the present bench.

When the HCP was previously posted before the bench, the court said that it could be taken up only in the regular course of the chronological order of date of detention and directed the registry to place the matter accordingly. The bench had also asked the State Government to consider a representation for Shankar's temporary release.

Meanwhile, Shankar's mother approached the Supreme Court through an SLP against the adjournment. The Apex Court, while ordering Shankar's interim release, asked the Madras High Court to expedite the decision in the HCP.

Accordingly, when the matter was taken up today, the state informed the bench about a transfer petition filed by Shankar's mother. The court noted that Kamala had made adverse remarks about the previous proceedings and said that the court's approach was shocking. The court also noted that in more than one instance, Kamala said that Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.

In such a circumstance, the court decided that it would be appropriate to recuse from hearing the present HCP and ordered accordingly.

Case Title: A Kamala v State

Case No: HCP No. 1163 of 2024