NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu and sought its responses after hearing a Habeas Corpus petition challenging the recent detention of YouTuber Savukku Shankar under the preventive detention law.
Advocate Balaji Srinivasan appearing for A Kamala, mother of Shankar, said that he had been subjected to physical torture and solitary confinement.
“The detention order was completely absurd, non-reasoned and blatantly illegal,” he told the apex court.
The three-judge bench of the top court, led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued notice to the Tamil Nadu government and sought its responses, after hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by Kamala.
Srinivasan alleged that the detention order was the second in a row, and issued merely three days after the first one was quashed by the Madras High Court.
Srinivasan had again moved the apex court against the second detention order.
“I get bail in all cases. But now they have again detained me yesterday. Please record that,” Srinivasan submitted.
He pointed out that the latest detention order against him was passed on allegations that contraband (ganja) was found in Shankar's possession.
"We have stopped all coercive action against him. We have granted protection from any coercive action in all 17 FIRs. File a complete chart of all FIRs as well," the Court said today.
Earlier on July 18, the apex court had granted Shankar relief against his preventive detention and ordered his release till the Madras High Court decided the plea against his preventive detention, after strongly observing that "somebody's liberty is involved."
"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 two-judge bench of the top court, led by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, observed.
The YouTuber, Savukku has been in preventive detention earlier, by the state police under the Goondas Act for two months.
In the Habeas Corpus petition, Shankar’s mother alleged that the Tamil Nadu government curtailed his freedom of speech and expression so that he could not challenge the current government. She also added that Shankar 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, Srinivasan 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.
On the last date of the hearing, the apex court had some serious and tough questions for the Tamil Nadu government and asked “Why should we not grant interim protection (to him)?”.
“Preventive detention is a serious law; is he a threat to national security?,” said the Bench.
"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 (read Courts) refused to grant “police remand” and moved the Detinue to judicial custody.
"It became clear that it was only a matter of time before 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 High Court 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 on the Bench, the matter was referred to a third judge, Justice G. Jayachandran, who, on June 6, 2024, ordered a fresh hearing of the HCP (Habeus Corpus Petition) before the Division Bench led by Justice Ramesh.
