CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has quashed the detention of YouTuber Savukku Shankar under the Goondas Act and ordered his release. However, Shankar's immediate release remains uncertain as he faces multiple other cases across Tamil Nadu.
The division bench, consisting of Justices SM Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam, directed Shankar’s release on August 9, 2024. The court's order stated, "The order of detention (under Goondas Act) is set aside. We direct the detenue Shankar @ Savukku Shankar to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other cases."
The habeas corpus petition was filed by Shankar's mother, A. Kamala, challenging the legality of his detention. The bench based its decision on several factors, including public order, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and legal considerations. They remarked that preventive detention was not an appropriate measure, emphasizing that "media persons and YouTubers cannot be strangulated, and if done so, it may pull the society back into the Colonial era."
Shankar was initially arrested by Coimbatore police on May 8, 2024, for allegedly denigrating women police personnel in a YouTube interview. Following this, a total of 16 cases were registered against him, leading to his detention under the Goondas Act by the Greater Chennai Police Commissioner on May 12. The detention was based on allegations related to his social media messages about the Kalaignar Centenary Bus Terminus and purportedly circulating documents from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority.
While the vacation court initially struggled with differing opinions, with Justice GR Swaminathan ordering Shankar's release and Justice PB Balaji recommending time for the prosecution to file a counter, the matter eventually returned to the regular bench for a final decision. The Supreme Court also granted interim bail to Shankar in the Goondas case.
The bench criticized the use of preventive detention, stating that "prosecuting the accused, holding trial and getting him convicted" should be the focus rather than invoking a “draconian” preventive detention order.
