'Concerned With System, Not Individual Apprehensions': Madras High Court Refuses To Stall Savukku Shankar Case Over Allegations Of Bias

The oral comments were made by a division bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman while hearing an application filed by the State police seeking to cancel the interim bail granted to YouTuber-journalist A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar.

When the case was taken up today, the counsel representing Shankar's mother, Kamala, the original petitioner, informed the court that the party was filing an application regarding apprehension of bias.

To this, the bench commented that if the party had any apprehension, it could proceed on the administrative side and get orders from the Chief Justice. The bench made it clear that it would not await the decision in any such application of apprehension as it was only concerned with dealing with the case that was listed before it.

“If you have any apprehension, you can proceed. But we can't wait. We can't keep the matter pending. We are not concerned about individual apprehension. We are only concerned about the system…We can't run the court for people who are apprehending something,” the court orally commented.

It may be noted that 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.

Following his arrest, Shankar's mother Kamala had approached the High Court seeking his medical treatment. A habeas corpus plea was also filed to forbear the police authorities from isolating Shankar from other prisoners.

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.

The Inspector of Police, Saidapet Police Station, had approached the court seeking to cancel this interim bail. The officer argued that though bail was granted on medical grounds, Shankar had not been taking any medical treatment. It was also alleged that Shankar had been misusing the liberty granted to him by the vacation court and was even threatening the witnesses in the case, thereby interfering with the investigation. The bench had previously asked the respondent (Shankar's mother, Kamala) to respond to the plea.

When the case was taken up today, the respondent's counsel argued that a notice should have been issued to Shankar on the present plea for cancellation of bail. It was argued that though Shankar's mother had filed the initial plea, Shankar had now been released on bail and thus, he should have been put on notice since the issue involved his liberty.

To this, the court responded that when the police's application for cancelling the interim bail was filed in the mother's petition, there was no need to issue notice. The court added that in pending cases, it was the duty of the counsel to inform the parties about the applications filed by the opposite parties. The court also added that if Shankar wanted, he could get himself impleaded in the case and it was not for the court to implead him.

“Mother filed the petition through counsel. Counsel has filed the vakalath. Vakalath is still there. Suppose any new case, the court will issue notice. But it is a pending case, so the court will not issue new notice. The counsel will only inform the parties. The counsel has to intimate that the opposite party has made such and such applications. If the party wants, let him come and get himself impleaded. Why should we give the notice to him?” the court said.

The court thus made it clear that it would be hearing the case, unless the respondent is able to secure an order asking the bench not to take up the case. The judges also made it clear that they would not recuse from hearing the case merely because the party has an apprehension of bias.

The court directed the respondent to file the counter by tomorrow and said that it would hear the case and pass orders.

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

Case No: WPMP Crl 14 of 2026