Plea against ‘Savukku’ Shankar’s detention under Goondas Act can be heard only in chronological order, says HC, adjourns it

CHENNAI: Holding that the habeas corpus petition (HCP) seeking to quash a detention order based on the Goondas Act can be heard only in chronological order, the Madras High Court adjourned the plea of YouTuber 'Savukku' Shankar's mother.

A division bench comprising Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan directed the petitioner to approach the state for the temporary release of Shankar, as the state is empowered to pass such an order, as per Section 15 of the Goondas Act. "We are not inclined to step into the shoes of authorities to consider the request of the petitioner," observed the court.

The bench also directed the state to consider the plea of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law.

Senior counsel R. John Sathyan submitted that his client's son had been assaulted by the prison authorities in jail and sought relief for his treatment.

The additional public prosecutor, E Raj Thilak, submitted that the advisory board has not rendered any opinion regarding the representation of the detainee seeking to quash the Goondas Act detention order.

The public prosecutor also sought time to file an additional affidavit.

After the submission, the bench directed the registry to post the matter after 8 weeks as per the chronological order based on the date of detention.

On May 23, the vacation bench led by Justice GR Swaminathan had heard the HCP moved by A Kamala, the mother of detained Shankar, seeking to quash the Goondas Act detention order invoked against her son.

In an unusual manner, Justice GR Swaminathan delivered his judgement quashing the Goondas Act detention order of the Greater Chennai Police Commissioner the very next day (May 24) without the counter of the state. The judge said that he delivered the judgement without giving time for filing a counter as two highly placed persons had approached him, telling him not to hear the HCP on merit.

However, Justice PB Balaji, the other judge on the bench, had a different view that the state should be allowed to file a counter.

Since the bench could not attain a consensus, the matter was listed before Justice G Jayachandran.

However, Justice G Jayachandran directed the registry to list the matter before another bench stating that the split verdict was 'incomplete' and that the findings of Justice GR Swaminathan had to be eschewed.

“Failure to afford opportunity to file the counter, when it was sought, and the bias of showing interest in passing order hastily without consulting the bench partner renders the expression of opinion by Justice GR Swaminathan non est,” the judge had noted in the order.

Hence, the matter was placed before a regular division bench Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan hearing HCPs.