In a shocking instance of alleged interference and intimidation of the judiciary, two emissaries, identified as ‘highly placed persons’ from the ruling party, reportedly approached a senior Madras High Court judge, urging him not to consider on merits the habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of YouTuber Savukku Shankar under the Goondas Act. The revelation has prompted an advocate to write a letter to the Chief Justice, demanding a CBI probe into the matter.
Madras High Court Judge GR Swaminathan disclosed on May 24 that he was approached by these influential individuals, who requested that he refrain from deciding the habeas corpus petition filed against Shankar’s preventive detention. Judge Swaminathan noted that the emissaries’ objective would have been achieved if he had followed the usual practice of ordering notice, returnable in six weeks, in such cases. However, the judge examined the preventive detention order on its merits and quashed it, citing non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
In a detailed 13-page order, Justice Swaminathan explained the circumstances surrounding the habeas corpus petition filed by Shankar’s mother. Shankar was detained as a ‘goonda’ under an order dated May 12, 2024, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. The writ petition was listed for admission on May 23, 2024, and the original files were requested for production. At 2:15 p.m., the Advocate General representing the respondents produced the entire file, and the matter was adjourned with an indication that the habeas corpus petition itself would be taken for final disposal on May 24.
Justice Swaminathan’s order highlighted that writ petitions challenging detention orders are typically taken up for final disposal in sequence. He also mentioned that the Advocate General expressed surprise at the departure from standard procedure in this case, drawing attention to Rule 19(3) of the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021. This rule states that Rule Nisi may be returnable by four weeks or earlier if ordered by the Court.
Judge Swaminathan, stationed at the Madurai Bench and serving as a Vacation Judge at the Principal Bench for the week, detailed the encounter in his 13-page order. “Two highly placed persons met me in person and did not want me to test the detention order on merits. If I had not been spoken to, I would have adopted the usual course of action as submitted by the learned Advocate General. Since I had been approached, I felt that if the writ is admitted and notice is ordered, those emissaries would have achieved their object,” the judge stated.
The habeas corpus petition was filed by Shankar’s mother, challenging his detention under the Goondas Act, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, on May 12, 2024. Shankar’s detention was reviewed by Judge Swaminathan, who emphasised that detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a ‘goonda’ requires actions that are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He noted that statements made on social media, as in Shankar’s case, do not disturb public peace or place public order in jeopardy enough to warrant preventive detention.
Quashing the detention order, Judge Swaminathan cited significant procedural lapses. “The omission to refer to the detenu’s arrest is fatal. It indicates non-application of mind to the relevant fact on the part of the detaining authority. Even if the detenu is granted bail in the cases mentioned in the grounds of detention, he still cannot be released from custody unless he is granted bail in Crime No.195 of 2024 also,” the judge stated. He concluded that the detention order must be quashed on these grounds.
However, Judge Swaminathan made it clear that even without the Goondas Act detention, Shankar’s release from prison was unlikely due to five existing cases against him, including one involving possession of ganja.
The case took a new turn when another judge, P B Balaji, sitting alongside Judge Swaminathan in the division bench, differed in opinion. Judge Balaji stated that the habeas corpus petition should be decided on merits only after granting the state a chance to file its counter-affidavit. This split verdict has now led to the matter being referred to Chief Justice R Mahadevan, who will nominate a third judge to hear the case afresh and resolve the impasse.
A Sr.Judge of MHC G.R.Swaminathan claims Someone powerful met him & pressurised not to entertain HCP of YouTuber Savukku Shankar,So being the reason he is passing an order to quash his detention of Goonda act. BTW who’s tat Person who had met the Judge on behalf of whom? Name Pl?
— C.Rajashekaran (@irajashekaran) May 24, 2024
In a concurrent decision, the judges directed the National Human Rights Commission to take cognizance of the complaint made by Shankar’s mother, A Kamala, and take appropriate action within four weeks. They also ordered Shankar’s transfer from Coimbatore Central Prison to Puzhal Central Prison in Chennai, following complaints of custodial violence that resulted in a fracture on his right arm.
Two individuals, journalist Sandhya Ravishankar and Tamilar Munnetra Padai founder Veeralakhsmi, filed petitions seeking to implead in the case. Senior counsel S Prabakharan, representing Veeralakshmi, questioned the urgency behind expediting the habeas corpus petition while many other petitions awaited attention.
Chennai-based lawyer Elephant G Rajendran has written to the Chief Justice, urging the initiation of contempt proceedings against the two individuals who attempted to interfere with the case. He emphasised that a CBI probe should be ordered to establish their identities and ensure they are held accountable for interfering in the independent administration of justice. Rajendran’s petition has been sent to the HC’s Registrar General and the Supreme Court’s Secretary General, advocating for the matter to be placed before an appropriate bench to order a CBI inquiry.
Comments