The Supreme Court granted interim relief to YouTuber Savukku Shankar against his preventive detention by Tamil Nadu police under the Goondas Act alone. His jail term will continue in the other cases Shankar is being tried in court.
Coimbatore: The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 18) granted interim relief to YouTuber Savukku Shankar against his preventive detention by the Tamil Nadu police. Shankar has been in preventive detention under the Goondas Act for two months.
A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah questioned the state's 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."
The court proceeded to observe that since the delay caused in the matter was not at Shankar's behest, he should be released until the case against detention is decided by the Madras High Court, which is already seized with the matter.
The Supreme Court was dealing with an SLP against the Madras High Court order adjourning the habeas corpus plea by Shankar's mother, challenging the preventive detention order. The High Court had stated that it would hear the plea in due course.
The Top Court 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 However, this petition was withdrawn.
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. He was remanded to judicial custody and charged with offenses under various sections of the IPC, Tamil Nadu Harassment of Woman (Prevention) Act, and Information Technology Act.
In May, a vacation bench of the Madras High Court had delivered a split verdict in the habeas corpus petition. Following the split verdict, Justice G Jayachandran was nominated as the third judge to decide the issue. Justice Jayachandran observed that Justice Swaminathan had passed the order "hastily" without following the natural justice principle of audi altarem partem.
The regular bench of the Madras High Court said that it could take up the habeas corpus plea only in the regular course in the chronological order of date of detention. This order is challenged in the present SLP before the Apex Court.
A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah questioned the state's 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."
The court proceeded to observe that since the delay caused in the matter was not at Shankar's behest, he should be released until the case against detention is decided by the Madras High Court, which is already seized with the matter.
The Supreme Court was dealing with an SLP against the Madras High Court order adjourning the habeas corpus plea by Shankar's mother, challenging the preventive detention order. The High Court had stated that it would hear the plea in due course.
The Top Court 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.
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. He was remanded to judicial custody and charged with offenses under various sections of the IPC, Tamil Nadu Harassment of Woman (Prevention) Act, and Information Technology Act.
In May, a vacation bench of the Madras High Court had delivered a split verdict in the habeas corpus petition. Following the split verdict, Justice G Jayachandran was nominated as the third judge to decide the issue. Justice Jayachandran observed that Justice Swaminathan had passed the order "hastily" without following the natural justice principle of audi altarem partem.
The regular bench of the Madras High Court said that it could take up the habeas corpus plea only in the regular course in the chronological order of date of detention. This order is challenged in the present SLP before the Apex Court.