The State must keep its house in order to prevent criticism. Instead, it should not invoke the colonial preventive detention laws to strangulate the freedom of speech and expression of mediamen and YouTubers, said Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the Madras High Court on Tuesday.
He made the observation before a Division Bench comprising himself and Justice V. Sivagnanam, reserved its verdict on a habeas corpus petition (HCP) filed by YouTuber โSavukkuโ Shankar alias A. Shankarโs mother A. Kamala challenging his detention under the Goondas Act.
During the hearing of the case, the senior judge in the Bench questioned the necessity for having invoked the preventive detention law against the petitionerโs son instead of concentrating on multiple criminal cases booked against him and getting him convicted in them.
โYou have rightly registered cases against him for having made derogatory remarks against women police personnel and other such offences. Prosecute him in those cases but you cannot strangulate his voice,โ Justice Subramaniam told Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) E. Raj Thilak.
When the judge wanted to know who gives inside information to him, Mr. Thilak replied that he claims to be receiving it through his sources. Immediately, the judge said that it was none but the members of the police department who leak information about their colleagues to him.
โIt is only my OA (Office Assistant), PSO (Personal Security Officer) and driver who would be the sources against me. They will tell you all details about everything I do. Have you ever tried to catch his sources in the police department and other places? Why donโt you do that,โ the judge asks.
He went on to state that people in power must develop tolerance and not react to every other comment made against them either in the social media or mainstream media. Participants of television debates too make all sorts of comments. โWill you be going after each one of them or be selective,โ he asked.
Observing that almost every other television channel was politically biased and the smartphone provides access to all kinds of information, both good and bad, the judge said it ultimately depends upon the viewer to choose what he/she wishes to watch and what he/she wishes to believe to be true.
He also recalled that Justice G.R. Swaminathan had convicted โSavukkuโ Shankar for contempt and sentenced him to six monthsโ imprisonment in 2022 but in May 2024, the same judge quashed his preventive detention order. โWe appreciate Justice Swaminathan for having taken such a stand,โ Justice Subramaniam said.
After hearing elaborate arguments advanced by petitionerโs counsel C. Ayyapparaj, who attacked the preventive detention order on merits, and the APP, who resisted the grounds of attack, the judges reserved their verdict without mentioning a date when the judgement would be delivered.
