Hearing the appeal of A Kamala, the mother of YouTuber Savukku Shankar who has been detained by the Tamil Nadu government, the Supreme Court on Monday told the state government that it could not be too harsh on him.”Preventive detention is a serious law. Is he a threat to national security,” asked a two-judge Bench of the top court, led by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.During the course of the hearing, the court asked why they should not grant interim protection to him.Opposing the contention of Kamala, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for TN, said that he is a habitual (offender). “He has made allegations against lady police officers and given interviews,” he said.On the other hand, Siddhartha Dave and Balaji Srinivasan, lawyers appearing for Shankar, said the HC adjourned the case sine die. “The third judge asked to file a counter. There is urgency in this,” they said. Taking note of all the submissions of the parties, the apex court fixed the matter for further hearing to July 18.Earlier on July 10, the Supreme Court judge Justice M M Sundaresh recused himself from hearing the case against Shankar’s detention under the Goondas Act.‘Savukku Shankar withdrew fast in jail after threat by cops’The petitioner Kamala said her son played a vital role in exposing the corrupt and illegal activities of the ruling party in Tamil Nadu. He is a whistleblower who brings truth and justice to the public, the lawyer Srinivasan told .The habeas corpus petition filed by Shankar’s mother challenged his wrongful detention which was designed to curtail his freedom of speech and expression so that he could not challenge the current government, Srinivasan said.”Both the orders (of the HC) are grossly illegal and in grave contravention of the rights of the detenu, i.e., Savukku Shankar, under Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. This submission is reinforced by the fact that two highly placed government functionaries approached the judges of the High Court hearing the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition and tried to prevail on the judges not to decide the case,” the petition said.Kamala is constrained to approach this court at this stage challenging the orders as she is simply exercising reasonable caution in the face of monstrous unfairness and injustice faced by her son at the hands of the respondents, it said.Shankar has been held in custody in several false and fabricated cases which were imposed on him by the respondents, he said. The government is trying to keep him in custody because of these criminal cases but the judicial authorities (read courts) refused to grant “police remand” and moved him to judicial custody, the petition added.”It became clear that it was only a matter of time before the detenu would be granted bail in all false cases foisted against him. In post haste, the respondents ensured that an illegal and malafide detention order was passed to keep the detenu in custody for at least a year,” it said.Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madras HC had quashed the detention order even without waiting for a counter affidavit to be filed by the detaining authority, whereas the other judge in the Bench Justice P B Balaji decided to wait for the counter.As there was a split verdict among the two judges in the Bench, the matter was referred to a third judge, Justice G. Jayachandran, who, on June 6, ordered a fresh hearing of the habeas corpus petition before the Division Bench led by Justice Ramesh.
Source link
