Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Plea By YouTuber Savukku Shankar's Mother Regarding His Treatment, Challenging Solitary Confinement

The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman reserved orders after hearing Senior Advocate V Raghavachari, representing Shankar's mother Kamala and Additional Public Prosecutor Muniyapparaj, for the state.

Shankar was arrested on 13th December in connection with an offence under Sections 296(b), 353(lxc), 308(5), 61(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It was alleged that Shankar had extorted money from a film producer.

It may be noted that in December last year, a division bench of the court had granted temporary bail to Shankar taking note of his health condition and the repeated prosecutions by the State, infringing his personal liberty.

In January, however, the Inspector of Police, Saidapet, approached the court seeking to cancel the interim bail granted to Shankar. The police argued that Shankar had been misusing the liberty granted by the court and was not in need of continuous medical treatment.

Though the bench had observed that Shankar's conduct had the potential to prejudice the investigation and was outside the ambit of protected speech, the court was not inclined to cancel his interim bai,l considering his medical condition. The court instead imposed additional conditions on his bail and called for setting up of a Medical Board to assess his health condition and file a report. Following the court order, a medical board was constituted by the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital and the report was filed before the court.

The court had also asked both parties to file their submissions/objections regarding the medical assessment report. The State filed its objection stating that Shankar's claim of requiring continuous specialised medical treatment was only a ruse to escape the clutches of law.

When the matter was taken up on Wednesday, Senior Advocate V Raghavachari argued that Shakar had only talked about running of a bar illegally and instead of investigating into the issue, the police had arrested Shankar, who was only a whistleblower. Wondering how the police could assist the criminal, he argued that all the allegations in the second complaint were made only to recall the interim bail granted to Shankar.

With respect to the medical board's report, it was argued that the medical board had not even enquired about Shankar's medical history or about the treatments that he was already taking. He argued that in prison, there was no proper facilities for treatment of cardiac ailments.

The APP, on the other hand, submitted that the police can give an undertaking that Shankar would be taken to hospital if he required any kind of treatment. He argued that even after getting interim bail, when Shankar went to the Hospital, he was treated as an out patient and given tablets which would show that there was nothing serious about his medical condition.

The APP argued that the investigation was being hindered due to Shankar's conduct where he was continuously posting videos about the investigation. He also pointed out how Shankar had been making derogatory comments against the investigating officer and calling him names.

After hearing the parties, the court reserved orders.

Case Title: A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others

Case No: WP Crl 1791 of 2025