Madras High Court Delivers Split Verdict In YouTuber Savukku Shankar Habeas Corpus Case

Justice G R Swaminathan allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition whereas Justice P R Balaji was of the view that the State should be permitted to file counter and the H.C.P. should be finally heard thereafter.

The bench was hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of the YouTuber.

Youtuber Savukku Shankar who is also considered as a whistleblower was labelled as 'goonda' by an order and was detained, hence his mother filed the present Writ Petition which is listed for admission. The case was scheduled for final disposal after the Advocate General presented the file. The Advocate General noted that typically, such Writ Petitions are admitted, with notices issued returnable in four weeks, as per Rule 19(3) of the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021, and questioned the departure from this standard procedure in this case.

Justice Swaminathan after perusing Rule 19(3) of the Madras High Court Writ Rules 2021 observed, “Rule nisi may be returnable by four weeks or earlier if so ordered by the Court. Detenus are set at liberty either on the ground that the very passing of the detention order was illegal or that the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated. If the illegality of the detention order is evident on the very face of the record, nothing stops the Court from putting the State on notice and setting aside the order. Failure to do so will be an abdication of judicial responsibility.”

He noted that many HCPs would be closed as infructuous in earlier times because the detention period itself would have been undergone by then. He said that one can take judicial notice of the fact that the law enforcing authorities take the shortcut route of invoking detention law only to ensure that the accused remains in prison at least for a few months.

According to him, when the bail petition is taken up for hearing if the Judicial Magistrate or the Judge is informed that detention proceedings are going to be slapped on the accused, the bail petition will be dismissed.

“It is for this reason that I hold that if the detention order is patently vulnerable and liable to be set aside, it is not necessary to order the usual four weeks notice.”, the Court said.

Justice Swaminathan noted that it is well settled that a person can be detained as 'goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 only if he acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and it is a question of degree and extent of the reach of the act upon the Society.

According to him making statements in social media as in the cases against the detenu can hardly be said to disturb public peace or place public order in jeopardy to bring the case within the purview of the Act providing for preventive detention.

He mentioned the decision in 2004 1 MLJ Crl 829 Anjalammal v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others where the division of Madras HC had held that the detaining authority must take into account the arrest of the detenu in all the cases registered against him.

The Judge further noted that the omission to refer to the detenu’s arrest under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is fatal. According to him, even if the detenu is granted bail in the cases mentioned in the grounds of detention, still he cannot be released from custody unless he is granted bail in the NDPS case.

Accordingly, Justice Swaminathan allowed the HCP.

Since there was no consensus the Court directed the Registry to place the papers before the Acting Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

Cause Title: A. Kamala v. The State Rep By

Click here to read/download Judgment