NEW DELHI: The Tamil Nadu government informed the Supreme Court on Monday that YouTuber Savukku Shankar was not in solitary confinement, contrary to his counsel’s claims. Prior to this submission, the bench had agreed to adjourn the hearing. Advocate Balaji Srinivasan, representing Shankar, had alleged that Shankar was in solitary confinement at a prison in Madurai and requested an interim transfer to a Chennai prison for better access to facilities. The bench observed that solitary confinement was not warranted, prompting Tamil Nadu’s standing counsel to clarify that Shankar was not in solitary confinement.Notably, the top court had issued a notice to Tamil Nadu on Friday, seeking its response after hearing a habeas corpus petition challenging Shankar’s second detention under the preventive detention law.A three-judge bench of the SC—including CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra—was hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by Shankar’s mother, Kamala, challenging his detention under the Tamil Nadu ‘Goondas’ Act of 1982.The bench scheduled the matter for next Tuesday after Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, representing Tamil Nadu, pointed out that a related case filed by Shankar seeking to consolidate 16 FIRs against him was not listed for hearing.The bench recorded this statement and instructed the lawyers to file written submissions, with the matter set for disposal next Tuesday.On August 30, the SC had asked the Tamil Nadu government to clarify whether the FIRs pending against Shankar could be consolidated, noting that consolidation was not possible if the incidents were separate and “distinct.”Srinivasan, representing Kamala, argued that Shankar had been subjected to physical torture and solitary confinement. “The detention order was completely absurd, non-reasoned, and blatantly illegal,” he told the court.The three-judge bench issued a notice to the Tamil Nadu government and sought its response after hearing Kamala’s habeas corpus petition.Srinivasan claimed that the second detention order was issued just three days after the first one was quashed by the Madras High Court.On August 14, the Supreme Court, led by CJI Chandrachud, granted interim relief to Shankar, staying all coercive actions against him in 17 FIRs.Srinivasan had again approached the apex court regarding the second detention order. He pointed out that the latest detention was based on allegations that contraband (ganja) was found in Shankar’s possession.”We have stopped all coercive actions against him. We have granted protection from any coercive actions in all 17 FIRs. File a complete chart of all FIRs as well,” the Court said today.On July 18, the SC had granted Shankar relief against his preventive detention and ordered his release until the Madras HC decided his plea, observing that “somebody’s liberty is involved.”Notably, Shankar has been in preventive detention under the Goondas Act for two months.”Do you sincerely believe that there should be preventive detention? This is not an ordinary civil dispute. This is preventive detention. Somebody’s liberty is involved,” the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, had earlier ordered Shankar’s release until the Madras HC decided his plea.The SC issued its order after hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Kamala, challenging the wrongful detention of her son by Tamil Nadu authorities, who allegedly curtailed his freedom of speech and expression to prevent him from challenging the current government. “Preventive detention is a serious law; is he a threat to national security?” the bench had asked.Srinivasan described Shankar as a whistleblower exposing corruption and illegal activities of the ruling party in Tamil Nadu. He argued that Shankar’s detention was aimed at suppressing his freedom of speech and expression.Srinivasan contended that the detention orders were grossly illegal and violated Shankar’s rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India. He alleged that high-ranking government officials had attempted to influence the High Court judges not to decide the case.Srinivasan said Kamala was compelled to approach the Supreme Court due to perceived unfairness and injustice faced by her son. She claimed that Shankar had been held in custody on fabricated charges, and the government was trying to keep him detained through illegal means.Earlier, the Madras High Court had quashed the detention order, with Justice GR Swaminathan deciding without waiting for a counter affidavit, while Justice PB Balaji chose to wait. As there was a split verdict, the matter was referred to a third judge, Justice G Jayachandran, who ordered a fresh hearing of the habeas corpus petition on June 6 before the Division Bench led by Justice Ramesh.
Source link
