Supreme Court orders interim release of YouTuber Savukku Shankar from preventive detention

The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the interim release of YouTuber Savukku Shankar, who has been detained as a 'goonda' since May by the Chennai Police [A Kamala v State of Tamil Nadu and Ors]..A Bench of Justices Sudhansdhu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah questioned the decision to detain Shankar.It also remarked that the Madras High Court appeared to have taken the matter of his liberty casually.Consequently, the Court ordered that Shankar be released as an interim measure while the High Court hears the petition challenging his preventive detention.It also recorded that the parties including the State have jointly stated that they will mention the matter before the High Court to take it up on Monday. "We also request for expediting hearing considering that it is a preventive detention matter," the Court further said..The Court had earlier asked Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who represented the Tamil Nadu government, to explain the need to detain Shankar."You tell me, you have mentioned only two cases. Some reporter who has filed a case against him is not even in that State (Tamil Nadu) but in Delhi. He mentions about a particular case, which is also not very good to our mind. How can he be put in detention? Is he a threat to national security of this country?" the Court asked..The Bench was hearing two petitions moved by Shankar's mother A Kamala related to his detention. One of the petitions sought the transfer of the case to the top court.A Division Bench of the High Court in May this year had delivered a split verdict on Kamala's petition against Shankar's continued detention.A third judge on June 6 later said that the split verdict was an “aberration” and in breach of legal principles. Subsequently, another Division Bench of the High Court refused to hear the matter urgently. .Personal liberty can't be taken away even temporarily without following procedure under law: Supreme Court.Today, the top court said it was not an ordinary civil dispute but a preventive detention matter. "Somebody's liberty is at stake. He is in preventive detention for over 2 months," Justice Dhulia said.At this stage, Justice Amanullah said, "High Court seems to be taking liberty very carelessly."When Luthra submitted that Shankar is a "unique specimen" who had defamed the judiciary and made comments against the judges, Justice Amanullah said,"Is this even relevant? He seems to be in depression."The Court further said,"Mr. Luthra, once we say justice must not only be done but seen to be done - this should not remain just a catchphrase. We are prepared to take the blame."However, the Court also asked whether Shankar can assure that he would not engage in any objectionable activity if he is given some relief."Just don't speak unnecessarily when you don't have substantial backing to it," the Court added..The Court also had a detailed discussion on whether it should hear the matter or request the High Court to urgently take up the case. It also considered whether an interim order should be passed to release Shankar."In preventive detention order, courts can go into technicalities. The point here is that this man is in jail for last 2 months and nothing has been done," Justice Dhulia said..On merits, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, representing Shankar's mother, argued that he was detained only on the basis of apprehensions that he would come out on bail in criminal cases and create a nuisance. "This cannot be a basis to invoke preventive detention," Dave saidDave also apprised the Court of the various complaints against Shankar."In two cases, even remand is not given by the judge. How can I be detained? There is no basis? So many complaints between 6 days, some by government and some by others," Dave said.While seeking a transfer of the matter from the High Court, Dave added the High Court had declined to hear the case urgently. The top court was further told that a judge had even disclosed that he was warned by two unknown persons to not hear a habeas corpus petition filed for Shankar's release from detention..Opposing the transfer of the case from the High Court, Luthra said that the top court may call for a record from the High Court first. He also took critical note that Shankar had sought a transfer of the case by citing "the ends of justice.""He (Shankar) means to say that High Court will not be giving justice or will not be giving fair hearing. If my lords transfer, then it would be on this prayer. It is your lordship who has to consider - whether such transfer can be allowed?" Luthra argued.After Luthra opposed any order to release Shankar by an interim order, the Court acknowledged that interim relief is not usually granted in habeas corpus petitions."Interim, we can only consider if we were in Article 32? Kuch bachta nahi hai? What should we do here? This is a case where there should not have been a preventive detention and now when there is a detention - such types of orders are passed. I cannot say anything more. This hearing is taking more time of this court," it added..At this stage, Luthra said,"That is why I said, let High Court hear this on Monday."However, the Court then expressed it was inclined to order Shankar's interim release, given the facts and circumstances of this case."We should not be handicapped as to grant of interim relief when our conscience (calls) for the same," Justice Amanullah said. Adding to this, Justice Dhulia said,"Also, why should we hear for interim due to this difficulty, we can hear it on merits and decide immediately? Can't we?""Please ensure that undertaking is being sought from him if interim is being given," Luthra suggested.The Court then ordered Shankar's interim release and requested the High Court to expeditiously hear the petition challenging his preventive detention.