New Delhi: Expressing concern over the Madras High Court’s “casual” dealing of YouTuber Savukku Shankar’s case, the Supreme Court Thursday granted him interim bail till the high court concludes its hearing on his mother’s petition challenging his detention by Tamil Nadu under the Goondas Act.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah also questioned the state’s decision to detain Shankar.
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, the judges remarked.
The court asked senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the Tamil Nadu government, to explain the need to detain Shankar.
“You tell me, you have mentioned only two cases. Some reporter who has filed a case against him is not even in that state (Tamil Nadu), but in Delhi. He mentions a particular case, which is also not very good to our mind. How can he be put in detention? Is he a threat to the national security of this country,” the bench wondered.
On 4 May, the Coimbatore Police had arrested Shankar on the basis of a complaint given by a woman journalist who accused him of making defamatory remarks against women police officers. He was charged under various sections of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information and Technology Act. Offences under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act were also invoked. Besides, cases were lodged against Shankar by the Chennai City CCD police.
On Thursday, the top court was hearing two petitions filed by Shankar’s mother, A. Kamala. She has challenged the Madras High Court’s order refusing to hold an early hearing of her petition challenging her son’s preventive detention. In a separate petition, she has asked the top court to transfer the case from the high court to itself.
Shankar’s mother filed a habeas corpus petition in the Madras High Court challenging his detention. On 7 May, a division bench of the high court delivered a split verdict, following which the matter was referred to a third judge.
On 6 June, the third judge gave the finding that the split verdict was an aberration, but he sided with the judge on the division bench who was against Shankar’s release. This judge, however, directed the matter to be placed before the regular bench that deals 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 the date of detention. The high court thus directed the matter to be placed accordingly.
Also Read: India bans 8 YouTube channels, 1 from Pakistan, for spreading ‘religious hate, security lies’
‘We have to keep focus on the detention’
At Thursday’s hearing, the top court pointed out that Shankar had been under detention for two months and that his “liberty” was at stake. “High court seems to be taking liberty very carelessly,” the judges remarked orally.
Luthra highlighted Shankar as a “unique specimen” who had defamed the judiciary and made comments against the judges. His argument, however, did not convince the judges, who remarked: “Is this even relevant (for his detention)? He seems to be depressed. We have to keep focus on the detention.”
The judges further told Luthra that the adage “justice must not only be done but seen to be done” should not remain a “catchphrase”. They agreed with Luthra that technically a court cannot order interim release of a person under preventive detention.
“In a preventive detention order, courts can go into technicalities. The point here is that this man has been in jail for the last two months and nothing has been done,” Justice Dhulia said.
The court further said: “This is a case where there should not have been preventive detention and now when there is a detention, such types of orders are passed. This hearing is taking more time in court.”
Kamala’s lawyer, senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, argued that Shankar was under detention only due to an apprehension that he could create nuisance. This, he added, cannot be the basis to invoke preventive detention.
As Dave pressed the apex court bench to transfer the case to itself, Luthra raised strong objection to the plea. The transfer prayer, Luthra asserted, appeared to insinuate that the high court would not be giving justice or a fair hearing.
Upon the two senior counsel assuring the bench that they would mention the matter before the high court with a request for an early hearing, the bench observed in its order: “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 of the matter, we do not think it will be appropriate to decide the case on its merits.”
The bench also asked the high court to expedite the matter “considering that it relates to preventive detention of a person”.
Since the delay in the case’s hearing was not on account of Shankar or his mother, the top court ordered his release as an interim measure.
“All the same, we are definitely of the view that the delay which has presently been caused in the matter, the petitioner has no hand, and therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner be released as an interim measure till the decision is taken (by the high court),” the court stated in its order.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: ‘Unrepentant character’ — what HC said while holding YouTuber Savukku Shankar in contempt