Savukku Shankar's remark against women cops does not disturb public order, reasons HC judge while quashing Goondas Act detention

CHENNAI: Holding that Savukku Shankar's statements do not have potential to disturb public order and not all the cases registered against him was shown in his detention order, Justice GR Swaminathan quashed the goondas detention invoked on him.

The judge reasoned out to the submission of the Advocate General (AG) PS Raman that why the petition is listed to dispose of, immediately, which was not usually adopted while dealing the HCP cases seeking to quash the detention order.

"Two highly placed persons met me in person and did not want me to test the detention order on merits, If I had not been spoken to, I would have adopted the usual course of action as expected by the AG", wrote the judge.

The judge also wrote the twin grounds which satisfied him to revoke the goondas.

"I am more than satisfied that the cases registered against Shankar do not have potential whatsoever to disturb public order", wrote the judge. It is ridiculous to claim that his statements will disturb the even tempo of social life and the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in the ground case make a silly reading, read the judgment.

The detenu by committing a wrong against by defaming women police or by circulating false document had committed prosecutable offences, hence he has to be tried in a court of law, wrote the judge.

The judge wrote the second ground that despite the Palanichettipatti police, registered a case against the accused under NDPS act which was not shown in the grounds of detention, the omission to refer to the detenu's arrest is fatal, read the judgement.

It indicates non-application of mind to the relevant fact on the part of the detaining authority, even if the detenu is granted bail in the cases mentioned in the grounds of detention, still he cannot be released from custody unless he is granted bail in the NDPS case, wrote the judge.

"It is well settled that detention order can be passed only if the detaining authority is satisfied based on materials on record that there is an imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail". If there is no such possibility or likelihood, the draconian provisions of preventive detention law will not be invoked, the judge wrote.

However, the other judge had the view that the State should be permitted to file counter and heard.

Since, no consensus arrived between the judges the matter was placed before the acting Chief Justice for getting finality.