Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court on May 23, 2024, sought a statement from YouTuber and alleged activist 'Savukku' Shankar regarding how he intends to conduct himself as a YouTuber in the future.

The order was passed by the division bench of Justices PB Balaji and GR Swaminathan in a habeas corpus petition filed on May 20 by Shankar’s mother, A. Kamala. The petition seeks to quash the detention order issued by the Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police on May 12 against Savukku under the Goondas Act. Additionally, a connected writ petition filed by Kamala requests an inquiry by the National Human Rights Commission into the alleged custodial violence against Savukku.

In the order, Justice Swaminathan expressed the court's displeasure over Savukku's highly disparaging remarks about Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu M.K. Stalin in his videos.

"We do not approve of such conduct. In other words, the Dont's will have to be committed before us," Justice Swaminathan emphasized.

Further, to get Savukku's such statement, the court permitted Savukku's mother or her representative to meet him in person.

On May 4, Savukku was arrested by the Coimbatore police following a complaint by a woman journalist, who accused him of making defamatory remarks against women police officers. He was then remanded to judicial custody.

In that case, the charges against Savukku include offenses under Sections 294(b) (obscene acts and songs), 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman), 354D (stalking), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. Additionally, he faces charges under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Harassment of Woman (Prevention) Act and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

Kamala argued that Shankar faced custodial violence, which severely impacted his health, and urged the NHRC to investigate due to the involvement of high-ranking officials. She also claimed there was neglect and inadequate medical care, highlighting human rights violations. Kamala further alleged that multiple cases were fabricated against her son to ensure his incarceration.

Additionally, Kamala challenged the detention order, arguing it was issued mechanically and without proper consideration.

Case Title: A Kamala v. The State and Connected Matter