YouTuber Savukku Shankar seen when he was produced before a court in Madurai last month
| Photo Credit: ASHOK R
The Greater Chennai City Police (GCCP) on Thursday, June 6, 2024, filed a sub application before the Madras High Court claiming that Justice G. Jayachandran had agreed with the view taken by Justice P.B. Balaji, in a habeas corpus petition filed against YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar’s detention under the Goondas Act, and therefore, the case must now be referred back to a Division Bench.
Appearing before Justice Jayachandran, the third judge appointed by Acting Chief Justice R. Mahadevan to break the tie following a split verdict delivered by Justices G.R. Swaminathan and Justice Balaji on May 24, Additional Advocate General (AAG) J. Ravichandran contended that Justice Swaminathan’s view would become a minority view after the third judge had insisted upon filing of counter affidavit.
The AAG said, the decision in the present HCP was peculiar because it had not led to a completely vertical split between two judges of the Division Bench with one judge quashing the detention order and the other judge refusing to quash it. If that was the case, then the third judge could hear the matter on merits and align with either of the two views thereby making one of those decisions, the decision of the majority.
In the present case, though Justice Swaminathan had gone into the merits of the case and quashed the detention order even before the filing of counter affidavit by the police, Justice Balaji had not gone into the merits at all but merely expressed his opinion that the matter could be decided on merits only after giving an opportunity to the Commissioner of GCCP to file a counter affidavit.
Since Justice Jayachandran had, on June 4, orally directed the police to file its counter affidavit by June 6, it would amount to the third judge having concurred with the view taken by Justice Balaji. Therefore, the HCP should now be referred back to the ACJ so that he could assign it to a Division Bench for being heard on merits in accordance with the Madras High Court writ rules, the AAG argued.
However, Senior Counsel R. John Sathyan, representing the habeas corpus petitioner A. Kamala, mother of the YouTuber, contended that referring the matter once again to a Division Bench would amount to as many as five different judges deciding an HCP. He said, there had been instances of the High Court having quashed preventive detention orders at the admission stage itself without waiting for a counter affidavit.
On the other hand, Senior Counsel S. Prabakaran, representing Tamizhaga Munnetra Padai founder Veeralakshmi who was one of the complainants against the YouTuber, argued that the detention order should not be quashed since Mr. Shankar was a habitual offender allegedly indulging in criminal activities. The senior counsel also relied upon a few decisions of the Supreme Court to buttress his arguments.
After hearing all of them, the judge said he had asked the police to file a counter affidavit because nearly a month had passed since the preventive detention order was passed on May 12, and it was a matter related to curbing the personal liberty of an individual. Asking the AAG to not read between the lines, the judge said, he was willing to grant further time too, for filing of the counter affidavit.
The judge asked the AAG to get instructions from the police by Thursday (June 6) afternoon on the issue of filing a counter affidavit to the HCP and arguing the matter on merits before him.
