‘Why Is One YouTube Journalist Repeatedly Incarcerated?’ Madras HC Grants 12-Week Interim Bail to Savukku Shankar

The Madras High Court on December 26, 2025 granted interim bail to YouTube journalist A. Shankar, popularly known as Savukku Shankar, observing that his repeated incarceration and the manner in which criminal law had been invoked against him raised serious concerns of abuse of process and violation of personal liberty.

A division bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and P. Dhanabal ordered Shankar’s release on interim bail for a period of 12 weeks, primarily on medical grounds, while also making strong observations on the repeated curtailment of his liberty. Court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by Shankar’s mother, A. Kamala, seeking medical treatment, temporary bail, and relief against alleged solitary confinement.

Shankar, a video journalist and the CEO of Savukku Media (OPC) Private Limited, has been lodged in Central Prison-II, Puzhal. His mother alleged that he had been continuously targeted by law enforcement agencies due to his investigative journalism and critical commentary on the functioning of the state government through his YouTube channel “Savukku Media”.

Court noted that a preventive detention order passed against Shankar under the Goondas Act in May 2024 had earlier been set aside by the high court. It further recorded that a second detention order passed immediately after the first was quashed was later withdrawn by the state before the Supreme Court. The bench remarked that the repeated use of detention laws against the same individual raised serious questions about the misuse of statutory powers.

"This Court has time and again reiterated that due process of law shall not be misused to target specific individuals, who have fallen out of favour with the State Government. The professionalism and discipline of the uniformed personnel shall not be compromised under any circumstances by indulging in such forceful action unnecessarily. This series of allegations and the nature and mode of arrest as detailed in the affidavit raise suspicion as to the veracity of the allegations against the petitioner’s son," court said. 

The present round of litigation arose from Shankar’s arrest on December 13, 2025, in connection with an FIR relating to an alleged unauthorised GPay transfer of Rs. 94,000 to an employee of Savukku Media. The petitioner contended that the transaction was engineered as a trap and pointed to the sequence and timing of the alleged transfer, registration of the FIR, and the arrest to allege fabrication.

The bench observed that it was unable to understand why a single individual, described as a YouTube journalist, had been repeatedly incarcerated by the law enforcement agency. It said such repeated action created suspicion as to whether he had been selectively targeted for expressing dissenting views.

A key factor that weighed with the court was Shankar’s medical condition. The bench recorded that he is a cardiac patient who has undergone a major cardiac procedure with two stents implanted due to 95 per cent blockage in his coronary arteries and is also a chronic diabetic. The petitioner alleged that despite these conditions, he was not being provided adequate medical care in prison and was subjected to mental harassment.

While prison authorities produced a medical report stating that Shankar’s health was stable, court found the report inadequate, noting that it did not take into account his past cardiac history. The bench also referred to representations placed before a magistrate indicating that Shankar had suffered fever and possible cardiac symptoms in custody, and that even doctors had initially expressed concern before later stating that there was “nothing to worry”.

Relying on constitutional principles under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21, and Supreme Court precedents emphasising that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, the bench held that deprivation of liberty, even for a single day, must be strictly justified. It observed that repeated curtailment of Shankar’s personal liberty could only be construed as an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, court granted interim bail for 12 weeks in connection with multiple FIRs registered against him, subject to conditions including execution of a personal bond, restriction on leaving the country, and cooperation with investigation. Court clarified that the grant of interim bail would not amount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending criminal cases and directed that Shankar be released forthwith.

Case Title: A.Kamala vs. The Inspector of Police, J1-Saidapet Police Station, Chennai and Others

Order Date: December 26, 2025

Bench: Justices S.M. Subramaniam and P. Dhanabal