Rampant Misuse Of Goondas Act In Tamil Nadu, 51% Of Country’s Detention Come From State, SC Told

The advocate representing YouTuber Savukku Shankar, a vocal critic of the DMK regime and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin submitted before a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud that all FIRs against his client are in respect of one interview and the first informants are police officials regarding these FIRs.

New Delhi:YouTuber Savukku Shankar, a vocal critic of the DMK regime and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin, on Friday told the Supreme Court that 51 per cent of the country's preventive detention orders come from Tamil Nadu, which shows rampant misuse of the powers under the Tamil Nadu 'Goondas' Act.

Shankar's counsel said, "I have a prison report which says 51 per cent of detainees come from Tamil Nadu. So, there is rampant misuse of this Act".

Advocate Balaji Srinivasan, representing Shankar, submitted before a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud that all FIRs against his client are in respect of one interview and the first informants are police officials regarding these FIRs. The bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, asked Srinivasan, has his client had something specific in respect of each of those first informants. He replied in negative.

The bench asked senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, these 16 FIRs against Shankar based on one interview. Rohatgi said he needed to check it and added that the petitioner had levelled allegations of corruption against judges and the High Court took up suo moto criminal proceedings and convicted him, and it is unabated and "I do not know what to do with such a person".

"It is not worth reading what he has been saying about every judge, every police officer, and lady officer…High Court notes it and High Court normally does not sentence somebody for 6 months'….I will place those orders," said Rohatgi.

Srinivasan said the first preventive detention was quashed, and three days later there was a second detention, and informed the court that he had filed two petitions. The CJI told him that his petition is seeking the quashing of 16 FIRs and asked, "Why should we exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 to quash 16 FIRs….".

Srinivasan said on August 9, 2024, the Madras High Court quashed the detention order and on August 12, the second detention order regarding his client was passed. Rohatgi said it was passed on different grounds. Srinivasan said his client gave the first interview on April 30 and on May 4, they arrested him in the first case.

"For the same interview, 15 other FIRs were lodged. In the first FIR, I got bail on May 12. Moment, I got bail, these FIRs were filed and he is detained under the Goondas Act, on May 12. After I was detained, I was paraded all over Tamil Nadu in these 15 FIRs. On July 18, this court grants me interim bail in the detention order….”, said Srinivasan.

The bench said Shankar has filed two petitions -- one seeking quashing of FIRs and the other challenging the detention – and asked, why he cannot move the High Court for relief.

Srinivasan said his client is on bail but he is detained and added, "I will show statistics, in the entire India 51% (detentions) come from Tamil Nadu….I have a prison report which says 51% detainees come from Tamil Nadu. So, there is rampant misuse of this Act".

The counsel also cited the apex court’s earlier observations rebuking the Telangana Police for routinely exercising the powers of preventive detention to detain individuals. When the bench queried why the High Court can't be approached for relief, the counsel contended that the pendency is so much that it would take at least five to six months for the matter to get decided.

Srinivasan also clarified that out of the 16 FIRs, 15 FIRs have been filed against one specific YouTube interview, therefore clubbing of FIRs is necessary. Rohatgi sought some time to examine whether all the 15 FIRs arise out of a single interview.

The top court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on Monday. Concluding the hearing, the bench said: "On detention, we will look at it prima facie. Because it is a case where the detention has been quashed (earlier) and a new detention order passed…".

On August 14, in a relief to YouTuber Shankar, the Supreme Court had put on hold coercive proceedings against him in 16 FIRs lodged by the Tamil Nadu Police in cases emanating from his interview to a YouTube channel.

Shankar has alleged that the state police has been filing false cases to arrest him and subject him to custodial torture. On August 9, the Madras High Court set aside the Chennai City Police commissioner's order detaining the YouTuber under the stringent Goondas Act.

Allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Shankar’s mother A Kamala, the High Court had directed him to be set free if he was not required in any other case.

Shankar (48) was arrested by the Coimbatore Police from southern Theni on May 4 for alleged derogatory statements about women police personnel in an interview to YouTube channel "RedPix 24×7" on April 30, which led to several FIRs against him. Now, a fresh case has been lodged by the Theni Police against him for the alleged possession of ganja.

Shankar was released in pursuance of orders of the apex court and the Madras High Court. However, he was detained again by the state police on Monday.

Read More