Two judges recuse from hearing HCP against ‘Savukku’ Shankar’s detention under Goondas Act

Madras High Court judges recuse from hearing habeas corpus petition due to comments made against them in Supreme Court petition.

Justices M.S. Ramesh and Sunder Mohan of the Madras High Court on Friday recused from hearing a habeas corpus petition (HCP) filed against the preventive detention of YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar, alias A. Shankar, since certain comments had been made against them in a petition filed before the Supreme Court to transfer the HCP either to the apex court or any other competent court.

The judges took the decision after Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) E. Raj Thilak said the YouTuber was in the habit of making reckless allegations against everyone including the judiciary. He said, the present Division Bench too had not been spared in the transfer petition filed by the YouTuber’s mother A. Kamala before the Supreme Court this month and read out the contents of the petition.

The transfer petition read: “On June 12, 2024, the matter came up for hearing before the regular Division Bench comprising of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan where the APP arbitrarily sought time to file an additional counter affidavit in spite of the fact that a counter had already been filed by Respondent No. 2 (Greater Chennai City Commissioner of Police).”

It went on to state: “While the petitioner’s counsel vehemently submitted again that the petitioner was being grievously assaulted while in custody, the honourable court stated that the petition could only be heard in the ‘regular course’ in chronological order of filing of the HCPs. Further, honourable court also said that the petitioner could approach the state government for his temporary release to take treatment for his injuries and directed the Government to consider the plea for detenue’s temporary release. Shockingly, the honourable court adjourned the matter indefinitely.”

The transfer petition also stated that Justice G. Jayachandran, the third judge appointed to break the tie following a split verdict delivered by Justices G.R. Swaminathan and P.B. Balaji in the HCP on May 24, had made “several defamatory and derogatory remarks” against Justice Swaminathan in an order passed on June 6, 2024 referring the case to the Bench led by Justice Ramesh.

Ms. Kamala had highlighted that Justice Swaminathan had recorded the fact of two emissaries having met him in person and making a request to not hear the HCP on merits. She insisted on transferring the HCP out of Madras High Court “in the light of extremely powerful political forces of the ruling party that are not only causing immense physical and mental harassment to the petitioner’s son but are also making forceful attempts to manipulate the judicial independence of sitting judges of the honourable High Court by approaching them and urging them to not consider the detention order on merits.” 

Senior Counsel R. John Sathyan, representing Ms. Kamala, said his client had withdrawn the transfer petition and therefore, the Supreme Court had dismissed it as withdrawn on July 18, 2024. It was only in a different special leave petition filed by his client, challenging the orders passed by the High Court in the HCP, that the apex court had requested the High Court to expedite the hearing of the HCP, he said.