SC orders release of YouTuber Shankar after Tamil Nadu revokes his detention

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered "forthwith" release of well-known YouTuber Savukku Shankar who was detained just after his release under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act.

The top court's order came after the Tamil Nadu government apprised it of the state having revoked his detention order following the opinion of an advisory board on the issue.

"Acting on the opinion of the Advisory Board, the state has revoked the order of detention today... In view of the aforesaid, the detenue Shankar alias Savukku Shankar shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case," the bench ordered while disposing of his plea against the fresh detention.

Shankar (48) was arrested by the Coimbatore Police from southern Theni on May 4 for alleged derogatory statements about women police personnel and some Madras High Court judges in an interview on the YouTube channel "RedPix 24x7" on April 30, which led to several FIRs against him.

Besides these cases, the YouTuber also faces a case lodged by the Theni Police for the alleged possession of 'ganja'.

Shankar was released in pursuance of orders of the apex court and the Madras High Court. However, he was detained again by the state police on August 12.

The high court had on August 9 set aside the Chennai city police commissioner's order to detain Shankar under the Goondas Act. It had also directed that the YouTuber, lodged in the Coimbatore Central Prison, be set at liberty forthwith if he was not required in any other case.

He then filed two separate petitions seeking release and quashing of the cases against him.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddarth Luthra appeared for the state government.

Earlier, the top court had indicated that it may deal with the detention aspect and for clubbing the cases, the YouTuber will have to go to the high court.

On August 30, it had asked the Tamil Nadu government to apprise it on September 2 of the reasons behind Shankar's detention just after being released in connection with several criminal cases.

Observing that 15 FIRs have already been clubbed, the bench had said it will prima facie consider the aspect of fresh detention of the accused by the state government under the Goondas Act.

The state government had alleged that Shankar has said all Madras High Court judges are corrupt and it was not a case where the top court should step in. He has also been speaking against women police officials, Rohatgi had said.

Shankar’s lawyer had opposed the submissions of the state government and said 51 per cent of total detenues in the country come from Tamil Nadu every year and this shows the "rampant misuse" of the Goondas Act.

The top court had on July 18 ordered his interim release. But, he was taken into preventive detention later.

Shankar had alleged that the state police were false cases to arrest him and subject him to custodial torture.

Allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Shankar's mother A Kamala, the high court had directed him to be set free if he was not required in any other case.

Setting aside the detention order dated May 12, a division bench of the high court had said, "We have arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the impugned order of detention is not in compliance with the essential requirement and ingredients as contemplated under Act 14 of 1982. Thus, the detention order issued by the Commissioner of Police is set aside."

The high court had said the detaining authority had registered both adverse complaints on the same day -- May 7. One complaint was registered after the lapse of nearly six years, whereas the other was pertaining to alleged derogatory remarks against women police officers.

"The beauty of our democracy lies in the constitutionally guaranteed freedom and when the state machinery itself starts stifling it, people lose faith in democracy," the high court had said.

A detenu under the Goondas Act may be imprisoned for a year, subject to scrutiny by an advisory board, and the validity of such detention is also examined by the high court based on petitions filed by the affected persons.