Don't book each and every person spreading fake news unless law and order threatened: Madras High Court

State must exercise restraint while initiating legal action against its own citizens, the Madras High Court said on Friday while setting aside the preventive detention order passed by the Chennai police against YouTuber Savakku Shankar..A bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam said that in the age of internet when information is overflowing from all quarters, it is impossible to initiate criminal proceedings each and every person who spreads false or fake information.“A State going behind each and every social media post or YouTube videos will not change any one's views; instead it will make the people feel stifled of their right to speech,” the Court said. Hence, the the threshold for initiating criminal action would be to see whether the publication of such false information causes any threat to law and order.“In the age of internet, information is overflowing from all quarters and booking each and every person for spreading false information is an impossible exercise. The threshold shall be to see if the publication of information causes any threat to public disorder. There are lakhs of people expressing their view in various forms across various medium. If the State machinery starts hunting down each and every view and opinion, the voices will neither be brought down nor will this yield any viable result,” the Court said.The Court, therefore, set aside the detention order passed by the Commissioner of police against Shankar under the TN Goondas Act, and directed that the YouTuber be immediately released from custody.“State and its machinery shall impose restraint when taking legal course of action against its own citizen,” the High Court said in its order.The Court was hearing a Habeas Corpus petition filed by Shankar’s mother following his arrest on May 12 this year.The Goondas Act was invoked and Shankar was arrested following a YouTube interview in which he made some comments that were alleged to be derogatory towards women police personnel..While Shankar's mother claimed that the detention order had been passed without any legal basis, the State argued before the Court that Shankar was a repeat offender, prone to making provocative comments on social media. His comments in the present case had even led to specific instances of public unrest in the State, the State argued..However, the Court noted that the State had failed to provide any proof or point out any such breach of public order caused by Shankar’s interview.The High Court further said that though Shankar might have made derogatory statements, unless such statement resulted in law and order issues, the preventive detention law cannot be invoked..It went on to say that a government in a democracy, a people’s government must avoid engaging in “fruitless actions.”Hence, it dismissed the plea..Advocates C Iyyapparaj and TS Lavanesh appeared for A Kamala, the petitioner.Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor E Raj Thilak appeared for the State..[Read Order]