NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court in its order granted interim bail to Tamil YouTuber Savukku Shankar against his preventive detention.
The two-judge bench of the top court, led by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on Thursday ordered his release till the Madras High Court decides the plea against his preventive detention.
The YouTuber has been in preventive detention by the state police under the Goondas Act for two months.
"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 court said.
The Supreme Court pronounced the order, after hearing a Habeas Corpus petition filed by A Kamala, Shankar’s mother, challenging the wrongful detention of her son by the Respondents (TN government and others) as she alleged that the Tamil Nadu government curtailed his freedom of speech and expression so that he could not challenge the current government.
On the last date of the hearing, the apex court had some serious and tough questions for the TN government.
"Why should we not grant interim protection (to him)."? The Court asked the state government.
"Preventive detention is a serious law; is he a threat to national security?", the two-judge Bench of the top court asked.
The petitioner, the mother of the detinue Shankar, has stated that her son has played a vital role in exposing the corrupt and illegal activities of the ruling party in the Government of Tamil Nadu.
He is a whistleblower who brings truth and justice to the public, Balaji Srinivasan, Shankar's counsel told The New Indian Express.
“It is submitted that this Habeas Corpus petition is filed by Shankar’s mother, challenging the wrongful detention of her son by the Respondents only to curtail his freedom of speech and expression so that he could not challenge the current government,” Srinivasan said.
"Both the Orders (Of June, of HC's) are grossly illegal and in grave contravention of the rights of the Detinue, i.e., Savukku Shankar, under Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. This submission is reinforced by the fact that two highly placed Government functionaries approached the Judges of the High Court hearing the Petitioner’s Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP) and tried to prevail on the Judges not to decide the case," the petition said.
Kamala is constrained to approach this court at this stage challenging the orders as she is simply exercising reasonable caution in the face of monstrous unfairness and injustice faced by her son in the hands of the respondents, Srinivasan said.
The detinue has been held in custody in several false and fabricated cases which were imposed on him by the respondents. The Government is trying to keep the Detinue in its custody because of these criminal cases. However, the judicial authorities refused to grant “police remand” and moved the detinue to judicial custody.
"It became clear that it was only a matter of time before the detinue would be granted bail in all false cases foisted against him. In post haste, the Respondents ensured that an illegal and malafide detention order was passed to keep the detinue in custody for at least a year," it said.
It is to be noted that Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madras HC had quashed the detention order even without waiting for a counter affidavit to be filed by the detaining authority, whereas the other judge in the Bench Justice P B Balaji decided to wait for the counter.
As there was a split verdict, among the two judges in the Bench, the matter was referred to a third judge, Justice G. Jayachandran, who, on June 6, 2024, ordered a fresh hearing of the Habeas Corpus Petition before the Division Bench led by Justice Ramesh.