CHENNAI: Holding that the split verdict of the vacation bench on the legality of the detention of YouTuber Savukku Shankar under the Goondas Act was not ‘a complete order’, the third judge, Justice G Jayachandran, reverted the matter to the regular division bench of Madras High Court hearing habeas corpus petitions (HCPs) on Thursday.
Justice G Jayachandran recommended the Acting CJ give necessary instructions to the Registry to refer the matter to the division bench to decide on the point of difference--whether the detaining authority be given time for filing a counter-affidavit before passing orders on the case or not. HCP was filed by the YouTuber’s mother seeking to quash the detention under the Goondas Act.
The presiding judge of the vacation bench Justice GR Swaminathan had denied the opportunity to the Greater Chennai Police to file a counter-affidavit and quashed the detention on procedural lapses while the dissenting judge, Justice PB Balaji, held that the police must be granted time to file the counter-affidavit.
Subsequently, the matter was referred to Justice Jayachandran who had directed the police to file the counter-affidavit during the earlier hearing. However, when the matter came up for hearing on Thursday, Additional Advocate General (AAG) J Ravindran, representing the Greater Chennai Police, submitted that since Justice Jayachandran has directed the respondent to file the counter-affidavit, he is agreeing with the view taken by the dissenting judge. As the majority view is that the respondent shall be granted time for filing the counter-affidavit, the HCP must be heard by the regular division bench as per the relevant rules of the High Court.
Disagreeing with this contention, Justice Jayachandran directed the police to file the counter-affidavit by 2.15 pm on Thursday, which they did.
After going through the counter-affidavit, he said that the police should have been given the opportunity to be heard before passing the orders. He added that while Justice Swaminathan quashed the detention order on the merits of the HCP, the dissenting judge, Justice Balaji, did not comment anything on the merits, except commenting that the police should be given more time to respond. Hence, the order of this nature is not a complete one, he added.
The judge also said that it must be ensured that the order passed by the bench does not suffer from any infraction of constitutional rights and that an opportunity is given to the police to justify its action.
‘Extraneous factors’
Regarding the references made by Justice Swaminathan that two persons tried to influence him on the matter, Justice Jayachandran observed that if he was disturbed by extraneous factors, he should have recused himself.
Meanwhile, the Greater Chennai Police Commissioner Sandeep Rai Rathore, in the counter-affidavit, stated that the videos posted by Shankar on the Kilambakkam bus terminus issue instigated the public to indulge in agitation. He said the Goondas Act was invoked against him after making an independent assessment of the case against him and coming to subjective satisfaction.