In a brief but significant hearing, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (15 April) declined to entertain a petition challenging the preventive detention of journalist and YouTuber Savukku Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The Court asked the petitioner to approach the appropriate High Court instead.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Shankar’s nephew, D. Bharath, who questioned the legality of a third detention order issued against him. Along with seeking to set aside the detention, the plea also requested a writ of habeas corpus, claiming misuse of preventive detention laws.
Read also:- Kejriwal Flags ‘Conflict of Interest’ in Delhi HC, Files Fresh Affidavit Seeking Judge’s Recusal
Shankar was first arrested in December 2025 in connection with an extortion case under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Following his arrest, multiple proceedings were initiated before the Madras High Court, including requests for medical care and challenges to his detention conditions.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma chose not to go into the merits of the case at this stage. The judges indicated that the High Court is the proper forum to examine such issues first.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Pulls Up GNCTD Over Delay in Forming Grievance Committee, Sets 3-Week Deadline
The Bench observed that if the petitioner approaches the High Court, the matter can be taken up without delay, signaling the urgency involved.
Shankar had earlier secured interim bail on medical grounds from the High Court. However, strict conditions were imposed, limiting his public statements and interactions. When he approached the Supreme Court seeking relaxation of those conditions, relief was denied after the Court noted continued online activity.
In March 2026, just as Shankar was due to surrender, two new FIRs were registered against him. He was arrested in April, and shortly after, a fresh preventive detention order was passed, categorizing him under the Goondas Act.
Read also:- Eviction Not Maintainable Once Tenant Turns Co-Owner: Bombay High Court
The petitioner argued that previous detention orders had already been struck down and alleged procedural lapses, including failure to provide necessary documents.
The Supreme Court ultimately declined to intervene and directed the petitioner to seek relief before the High Court, leaving all questions open for consideration at that level.
Case Details:
Case Title: D. Bharath v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 142/2026
Judge: Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Decision Date: April 15, 2026
