'Video Journalists Must Adhere To High Ethical Standards': Madras High Court Says While Imposing Strict Bail Conditions On Savukku Shankar

“...this Court wishes to observe that video journalists must adhere to high ethical standards to maintain public trust and credibility. In the digital age, they are on the front lines in combating misinformation and disinformation,” the bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman observed.

The observations were made while refusing to cancel the interim bail granted to Youtuber-Journalist Shankar @ Savukku Shankar. It however, imposed more restrictions on Shankar, preventing him from making comments relating to the investigation in media.

Though counsel representing Shankar's mother argued that Shankar was entitled to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the court was not ready to accept the argument in toto. The court cautioned that the constitutional rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, and when the accused himself was making comments about the investigation, it could not be claimed as protected right.

The court noted that such conduct had the potential to prejudice the investigation and was outside the ambit of protected speech.

“When a criminal investigation is pending and the person making such statements is himself an accused, public commentary on the complaint, the complainant, the investigating agency, or the evidence cannot be claimed as a protected right. Such conduct has the potential to prejudice the investigation, influence witnesses, and obstruct the administration of justice, and therefore falls outside the protective ambit of Article 19(1),” the court observed.

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.

On December 26, 2025, a vacation bench of the Madras High Court granted interim bail to Shankar for a period of 3 months. The court had noted that Shankar had serious health issues and needed treatment. The court had also noted that the authorities had been filing cases against Shankar, curtailing his personal liberty.

Today, the bench observed that the interim bail, which was granted for a limited purpose, should not be used as a license to engage in conduct that defeats the very object for which the concession was granted. The court noted that Shankar had concealed his mobile phone during the interrogation, later displaying it publicly on YouTube, which amounted to a wilful and conscious violation of the interim bail conditions imposed by the court.

“In the present case, interim bail was granted solely to safeguard the medical and constitutional rights of the accused. Prima facie, the materials placed on record indicate conduct on the part of the respondent's son which goes beyond this limited purpose and tends to interfere with the ongoing investigation,” the court said.

However, considering Shankar's medical condition and the medical records produced before the court, the court opined that outright cancellation of interim bail was not warranted. At the same time, the court also opined that Shankar's conduct needed to be strictly regulated to safeguard the investigation and interest of justice.

Thus, the court asked Shankar not to make any statement, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the case, including comments against the conduct of the officers. The court has also asked Shankar not to interact with or intimidate the co-accused or the witnesses in the case.

The court has also restricted Shankar's movement, adding that any movement should be for the purpose of availing medical facilities or in connection with seeking legal assistance in the case. The court made it clear that any violation of the conditions shall be viewed seriously, and strict action would be taken against Shankar.

The court also directed setting up of a medical board to asses Shankar's medical condition and asked the team to submit the report by 3^rd February 2026.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.R.Muniapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John Advocate

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.G.Purushothamman

Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. A Kamala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 41

Case No: W.P.M.P(Crl)No.14 of 2026 in W.P.M.P(Crl)No.839 of 2025 in W.P.No(Crl)1791 of 2025 and H.C.P.No.2754 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Order