Savukku Shankar case: How many have you arrested for telling lies on TV? Madras High Court asks State

The Madras High Court on Tuesday grilled the Tamil Nadu government on whether it had been selective in detaining YouTuber Savukku Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act [A Kamala v. State and ors]..A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam orally observed that the spread of false news has become common now.The Court demanded if the State has been equally active in pursuing others who spread false news, if they were justifying Shankar’s detention on such grounds.“How many people are telling lies in TV channels and media? Have you arrested in all such similar cases? All the YouTubers arrested? All similar cases, where some information is provided on corruption or something, have you arrested? How many persons?...Is it possible for government to run behind all such persons spreading false news?…How it (Savukku Shankar’s comments) affected public order? We are disturbed because people giving false news is most common…You have rightly registered a case. You proceed with the trial. Get him convicted, we are not standing in the way…(But) You cannot strangulate freedom of speech,” Justice Subramaniam remarked today..The Court was hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by Shankar's mother, Kamala, who had challenged the preventive detention of her son.Shankar was recently released from detention on orders of the Supreme Court, until Kamala's plea is finally decided by the High Court..Kamala's counsel asserted today that Shankar's preventive detention was malicious.The State countered that Shankar was detained because he had repeatedly made derogatory statements. The State counsel added that Shankar was earlier imprisoned for contempt of court, but let off on the condition that he would refrain from making derogatory remarks in future. However, he has continued to do so.“Your lordships are dealing with a person who will never stop. We have prevented,” the State counsel maintained.“How long will you prevent?” the Court replied..The Bench clarified that it is not condoning the derogatory statements reportedly made by Savukku Shankar against policewomen.The State, meanwhile, submitted that Shankar had also used a forged document to allege corruption in the award of a tender for a bus stand, which triggered protests and affected public order.However, the Bench expressed strong reservations over whether all of this would warrant the invocation of the Goondas Act.“It is the (individual) person who views YouTube…Some may see, others may say it is improper. It is the person who chooses...Take TV channels, each political party is having their channel. Can you say they are neutral? No...Debates are going in TV channels. So many persons participate, including retired judges. Can you say the debates are truth and truth alone?” Justice Subramaniam remarked..The judge added that he was not inclined to hold Savukku Shankar’s previous conviction for contempt of court against him.“We are not supposed to have any opinion on previous conduct. We have to decide on merits,” he said.Justice Subramaniam went on to voice an appreciative note for Justice GR Swaminathan for having kept an open mind in dealing with Savukku Shankar’s case, despite having earlier hauled the YouTuber for contempt.“Whatever (contempt) conviction happened is not relevant. Equally, we have to appreciate that the same judge (who sentenced Shankar in the contempt case) granted relief to him (in the split verdict). That shows his uprightness and neutral way of looking at things. We should appreciate Justice Swaminathan. He has boldly said this detention is wrong,” Justice Subramaniam said..As the hearing drew to an end, the Court advised the State to focus on eliminating corruption instead of invoking preventive detention laws against dissenters.To invoke preventive detention laws against the media or YouTubers may signal a regression to colonial times, the Bench opined.Orders have been reserved in the matter..[Read live courtroom exchange]