Madras HC sets aside YouTuber’s detention, says element of malice in Tamil Nadu government’s action

The Madras High Court on Friday set aside the detention of YouTuber Savukku Shankar, observing that there was an element of malice in the Tamil Nadu government’s actions against him.

Shankar’s release, however, is uncertain as he faces at least 16 cases and has not yet been formally arrested in at least 10 of them, The Print reported.

The YouTuber was first arrested on May 4 for allegedly making derogatory remarks about women police personnel in an interview to a YouTube channel.

On May 12, the Chennai Police arrested him under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber ​​Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 .

A bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam on Friday ordered Shankar to be released if he was not required in any other case. It also observed that the detention order was not compliant with the essential requirements for invoking the preventive detention law.

The court noted that the detention order was based on a video that Shankar uploaded about alleged corruption in awarding a contract for maintaining a new bus stand in Chennai’s Kilambakkam area to a private company. The police had alleged that the video was based on fake documents, and that it sparked protests about buses not being available.

The High Court, however, noted that the YouTuber uploaded the video on February 11, while the protest took place on February 10. “The contradiction apparent on the face of it, would be sufficient to reach a conclusion that an element of breach of public order has not been established,” the bench said.

A bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam said that preventive detention laws must be invoked with extreme care and caution. “Speeches criticizing the government, its policies and actions or exposing corrupt or illegal actions in public administration cannot be terminated as a threat to public order,” the court said.

The court said that preventive detention laws should not be used “to curb speeches where there is no disturbance to public order or security of the State.”

One of the cases against Shankar pertained to allegations that he made derogatory comments about a woman journalist. The court, however, that the case was registered on May 7, nearly six years after the complaint was filed.

“This raises some dubious question as to why this complaint was registered after a lapse of nearly six years,” the bench said.

---