Madras High Court Delivers Split Verdict In Habeas Case Against Savukku Shankar's Detention, Judge Says He Was Attempted To Be Influenced

While Justice GR Swaminathan wanted to set aside the detention order passed against Shankar, Justice PB Balaji wanted to give more time for the police to file their counter.

While delivering the judgment, Justice Swaminathan also added that the reason why he wanted to take up the habeas corpus plea and pass orders on Thursday itself was because some high-ranking men had personally met him requesting him not to take up the HCP for final disposal. This prompted him to take up the case.

“I'm a judge in Madurai presiding over this vacation bench only for a week. If I had allowed the plans of those persons, I would have failed in my constitutional duty. That is why I wanted to take up the case, despite the AG's opposition,” Justice Swaminathan said in open court.

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 and was remanded to judicial custody. Shankar 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.

Shankar's mother has challenged this detention order arguing that the order is devoid of merits and violative of Shankar's fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

While hearing the HCP, Justice Swaminathan pointed out that after the sponsoring authority had given an adverse report, the Commissioner immediately approved it which raises a question of whether there was a fulfillment of the requirement of subjective satisfaction.

Justice Swaminathan also said that since Shankar had been arrested in more than one case and had not been given bail, there was no probability of him coming out anytime soon which would warrant the detention order. He also opined that Shankar's statements were not against public order.

The court thus directed the Registry to place the case before the Acting Chief Justice for appointing a third judge to hear the case.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 211

Case Title: A Kamala v The State and Others

Case No: HCP 1163 of 2024