Supreme Court Orders Interim Release Of YouTuber Savukku Shankar Till High Court Decides Plea Against Preventive Detention

A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah questioned State action, observing,

"Do you sincerely believe that there should be preventive detention? This is not an ordinary civil dispute. This is preventive detention. Somebody's liberty is involved."

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for the State alleged that Shankar fabricated a document to highlight an issue, resulting in widespread public protests. Unconvinced, the bench orally remarked, "These are two different cases. People protested because there were not enough buses."

Luthra highlighted contempt case initiated by the Madras High Court against Savukku Shankar for disparaging comments against judges. However, the Supreme Court questioned the relevance of this in the case for preventive detention.

Justice Amanullah remarked, "Are these not extraneous considerations? Especially in the parameters of Article 21. We have to keep our focus limited on the detention order."

Justice Dhulia highlighted that Shankar had been in jail for two months with no action taken. Luthra highlighted that Shankar moved the present SLP only on July 2, 2024 when he had the option to approach the court during vacation.

Justice Dhulia dismissed this argument, stating, "What kind of argument is this? You put a man in detention and then ask why he did not come to court? He didn't come because he couldn't, as simple as that."

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave for the petitioner requested the Supreme Court to hear the case, Senior Advocate Luthra argued against this, asking that the state be allowed to request the High Court to hear this matter. Ultimately, the Supreme court granted interim relief while allowing the counsels to request the High Court to hear the matter, after Luthra said that interim relief may be granted by the Supreme court.

“Since final opinion in this case has not been expressed by the High Court and in sum and substance the High Court is still seized with the matter, we do not think it will be appropriate to decide the case on its merits...We also request the High Court to expedite the matter considering that it relates to preventive detention of a person”, the Top Court said in the order.

It then proceeded to observe that since the delay caused in the matter was not at Shankar's behest, he should be released till the case against detention is decided by the Madras High Court, which is already seized with the matter.

“All the same, we are definitely of the view that the delay which has presently been caused in the matter, the petitioner has no hands, and therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner be released as an interim measure till the decision is taken…”, the court stated in its order.

The court noted that both Dave and Luthra have jointly stated that they will make a request before the Chief Justice or before the appropriate bench seized of the matter to take up the matter on Monday or Tuesday itself.

It clarified that this order pertains only to the preventative detention matter and does not affect any other charges for which Shankar might be in jail.

Shankar had also filed a petition requesting the Supreme Court to transfer the habeas corpus plea to itself. However, this petition was withdrawn today.

Background –

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.

In May, a vacation bench of the Madras High Court had 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 a counter.

Justice Swaminathan also added that some high-ranking men had personally met him requesting him not to take up the petition for final disposal.

Following the split verdict, Justice G Jayachandran was nominated to be the third judge to decide the issue.

Siding with Justice Balaji, Justice Jayachandran observed that Justice Swaminathan had passed the order “hastily” without following the natural justice principle of audi altarem partem. Justice Jayachandran had thus directed the matter to be placed before the bench that dealt with habeas corpus cases.

The regular bench said that it could take up the habeas corpus plea only in the regular course in the chronological order of date of detention. The court thus directed the registry to place the matter accordingly and adjourned the case. This order is challenged in the present SLP before the Apex Court.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 8706-8707/2024

Case Title – A. Kamala v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.