Work to fix shortcomings instead of detaining whistleblowers: Madras HC

CHENNAI: Noting that preventive detention is a draconian law, it should be used sparingly and also suggested to preventing the illegalities and irregularities in the government machinery rather than detaining the person who talks about it, said the Madras High Court while reserving order in the habeas corpus petition (HCP) against the preventive detention of ‘Savukku’ Shankar.

A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam asked the State that it will arrest all the persons propagating false information on social media, as done in this case, while hearing the HCP moved by A Kamala, the mother of Savukku Shankar seeking to quash the preventive detention order initiated against her son.

Nowadays, false information floods social media. It cannot be controlled. We cannot stop the thought process of how viewers perceive the content they consume, said the bench.

Justice SM Subramaniam said he recently saw Rajinikanth starrer film ‘Jailer’, which is full of violence. The audience consumes these perverted thoughts. The public is choosing to see certain video content knowing the nature of the content, added the judge.

He also asked the additional public prosecutor, stating that the City Commissioner had recently said that the police would answer the rowdies in their language; this statement can be interpreted in good spirits and also in bad spirits; hence, the viewers’ perception is what matters.

The bench observed that preventive detention is a draconian law used by the British rulers; if a democratic State also uses it now, it will lead to the colonial era. The State should prevent the illegalities and irregularities prevailing in the government machinery rather than strangulating the media or YouTubers by detaining them for exposing the shortcomings, said the bench.

The petitioner’s counsel, C Iyapparaj, submitted that the ground case for initiating the preventive detention is Savukku Shankar’s content about Kilambakkam bus terminus. The State claimed that Shankar provoked the public regarding the Kilambakkam bus terminus and that the tender was given to a contractor in favour; hence, there are no proper amenities to cater for the needs of the passengers.

The counsel said the passengers staged a protest at Kilambakkam on February 10, 2024, whereas Shankar published his content the day after the protest. So it is a clear case of non-application of mind by the detaining authority, the counsel claimed. No untoward incidents happened due to the contents published by Shankar, said the counsel.

The next contention of the counsel was that there was a jurisdiction error in invoking the destination order as the Kilambakkam bus terminus comes under the Tambaram commissionerate, but the Chennai commissionerate detained Shankar.

The counsel also submitted that the prosecution had not served the detainee with any documents relating to the detention order, including crime number and remand report, which caused a disadvantage to the detainee in arguing his case.

Further, the counsel also submitted that his client’s various representations to quash the preventive detention were not considered as per the statute contemplated under the law and sought the bench to quash the detention order as Shankar had in jail for more than three months.

Additional public prosecutor E Raj Tilak submitted that Shankar has been propagating against the Kilambakkam bus terminus since December 2023 by circulating forged documents.

He is a repeat offender of spreading false information; hence, he was detained to prevent any untoward societal incidents. Further, it was submitted that he made statements against women police personnel, which affected their morale and objected to quashing the detention order.

After the submissions, the bench reserved the final orders without mentioning any date.