Case Summary and Outcome

An Indian High Court quashed the detention order passed against the founder of the Savukku Media YouTube Channel, under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act, 1982, holding that the detention order was passed maliciously to prevent the founder from criticising the government. Achimuthu Shankar, alias Savukku Shankar, was detained based on allegations of circulating false documents and inciting a protest at a bus terminus in Tamil Nadu—thereby disturbing “public order.” The detention order also referred two other complaints, including one filed nearly six years after the alleged incident. The Court questioned the suspicious timing of the complaints and found that the protest occurred before Shankar’s video, weakening the State’s claim. It also observed that “mere publication[s] of false information” or “mere speeches aimed at the Government” cannot be punished under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act, 1982, unless “an apprehension of disturbance to public order” is established. The Court emphasized that dissenting political or ideological views cannot be viewed as causing public disorder. It highlighted too that excessive use of preventive detention laws restricted the right to free speech and deterred citizens from criticizing the government, “fracturing the spine of democracy.”

Facts

Achimuthu Shankar, also known as Savukku Shankar, runs the Savukku Media YouTube channel and identifies as a “whistleblower and social media journalist.” [para. 44] The case against Shankar revolved around one main incident, referred to as the “ground case,” and two earlier “adverse cases.”

The main incident took place on February 10, 2024, when bus passengers at the newly inaugurated Karunanidhi Centenary Bus Terminus in Kilambakkam (Chennai, Tamil Nadu) staged a protest over the non-availability of bus services. The next day, on February 11, 2024, Savukku Media published a video about a government tender related to the bus terminus. Almost three months later, on May 8, 2024, Balamurugan, the Superintending Engineer of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA), filed a complaint accusing Shankar of circulating forged documents and spreading false information. This became the basis for the “ground case.”

The first of the two “adverse cases” dates back to August 27, 2018: Then, journalist Sandhya Ravishankar filed a complaint alleging that Shankar had made derogatory comments against her. The second adverse case was initiated on May 6, 2024, when a social activist, Veeralakshmi, lodged a complaint accusing Shankar of making derogatory remarks about women police officers in a YouTube video. The detaining authority registered both adverse complaints on May 7, 2024.

At the time these three complaints were filed, Shankar had already been arrested by the police on May 4, 2024, under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, and the Information Technology Act. On May 9, 2024, Shankar’s remand was rejected by the Magistrate in both the “adverse cases;” however, he was re-arrested on May 10, 2024, in connection with the “ground case.”

On May 12, 2024, the Commissioner of Police issued a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act, 1982, a preventive detention law, and deemed Shankar a “goonda”. Under section 3(1) of the Act, a “goonda” can be detained and prevented from disturbing “public order.” In the detention order, it was alleged that Shankar disseminated a false document intended to defame the State and the CDMA, as well as spread misinformation through his blog, Twitter account, and YouTube channel regarding the Karunanidhi Bus Terminus. The order stated that the “wrong influence of above false propagandas” led to passengers staging a protest, citing a shortage of buses.” [para 37] The detention was primarily based on the “ground case” but also cited the two “adverse cases.”

Shankar’s mother made a representation against the detention, but it was rejected. She filed a Habeas Corpus petition to the Madras High Court. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which granted interim bail and directed the Madras High Court to decide the case expeditiously.

Decision Overview

Justices S.M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam of the Madras High Court delivered the judgment. The central question for the Court was whether Shankar’s actions and statements disturbed public order, thus justifying his preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act of 1982.

Shankar’s mother argued that the detention was politically motivated and aimed at “quell[ing] the voice of dissent.” [para. 23] She asserted that the State was using preventive detention to suppress criticism and opposition.

The State, on the other hand, claimed that Shankar’s actions created a disturbance to public peace and order, warranting his detention.

The Court raised serious concerns about the timing and motives behind the detention. It noted that both “adverse cases” were initiated on the same day—May 7, 2024—despite one of them relating to events from 2018. This delay of nearly six years was seen as deeply questionable. The Court noted that the CMDA complaint also came three months after the actual protest took place, and that the protest happened even before the content was posted, which undermined the legitimacy of the “ground case.”

The Court observed that the authorities acted with malice and that Shankar’s criticism provoked the government to detain him under preventive detention laws to stop him from “publishing any such criticism, opinions about the Government or its officials.” [para. 34] The Court stressed that individual freedom cannot be restricted at the “whims and fancies of the State” [para. 64] and cautioned the State from embarking on “indirect censorship by detaining persons under Goondas Act”. [para. 46] Moreover, the Court highlighted that the excessive use of preventive detention laws restricts the right to free speech and deters citizens from criticizing the government, “thereby fracturing the spine of democracy.” [para. 64] On this point, it reiterated that preventive detention laws cannot be used to curb speeches in the absence of disturbance to public order.

The Court emphasized that “mere expression of views in the nature of political or ideological dissent cannot be viewed as causing public disorder.” [para. 59] It held too that “speeches criticising the ruling government, its policies and actions or exposing corrupt or illegal actions in the public administration cannot in itself be termed as threat to ‘public order.’” [para. 65] The Court stated that only speeches that “instill a sense of fear and harm to the public” can be curbed. [para. 62] Thus, the Court directed the government to exercise “extreme care and caution” while invoking preventive detention. [para. 64]

Referring to the “adverse cases,” the Court observed that “allegation[s] or remarks made against individuals cannot constitute a threat to ‘public order.’” [para. 36] To it, the allegations made in the “adverse cases” were unsatisfactory and vague and did not demonstrate how ‘public order’ was disturbed. The Court observed that “public disorder cannot include all law and order situations.” [para. 39] On this point, it referred to Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, in which the distinction was made clear. In the Ram Manohar Lohia case, the Court argued, by way of example, that “when two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder[…] Suppose that the two fighters were of rival communities and one of them tried to raise communal passions. The problem is still one of law and order but it raises the apprehension of public disorder.” [para 39] Following this logic, the Court highlighted that the “breach of law and order by itself cannot be termed as public disorder.” [para. 62] It stressed that the term “public disorder” can be invoked only when there is a “real threat or apprehension of large scale disturbance in the society”, and that was not established in the case. [para. 30]

Furthermore, the Court noted that speech on social media is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and can be restricted only when it “directly causes public disorder or acts against national security.” [para. 58] Hence, it argued that whether social media content causes public disorder depends on the “subjective satisfaction of the scrutinising authority,” but a common test is to check whether there had been “any actual threat or apprehension of incitement of an offence against the public at large” due to the content. [para. 60]

The Court acknowledged that false and prejudicial views may exist online but held that it is not the role of the State to pursue every such instance. According to it, the State should restrain itself from engaging in legal battles and allow the public to evaluate the content for themselves. The Court reinforced the notion that viewers have a right to know others’ opinions on government policies and ruled that “censorship against such views is unhealthy for good governance.” [para. 54]

The Court observed that the “selective detention of persons, spreading false information is also a threat to democracy” [para. 47] and that it is not possible to prosecute everyone for spreading false news; rather, the focus should be on whether the “publication of information causes any threat to public disorder.” [para. 47] Considering that the internet is overflowing with information, the Court said, “if the State machinery starts hunting down each and every view and opinion, the voices will neither be brought down nor will this yield any viable result.” [para. 47]

The Court concluded that preventive detention is a significant restriction on an individual’s fundamental rights and underscored the need to “balance the individual freedoms and the public order.” [para. 42] It observed that the “mere publication of false information” or “mere speeches aimed at the Government” cannot be punished under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act, 1982, unless “an apprehension of disturbance to public order” is established. [paras. 42-51] Accordingly, the Court set aside the detention order and ordered Shankar’s release from prison.