No Prima Facie Harassment Found Against Journalist; Madras High Court Dismisses Plea But Orders Expedited Trial in 37 Pending Cases - 2025-09-02

Madras High Court Dismisses Savukku Shankar's Plea Allging Police Harassment, Orders Speedy Conclusion of Pending Cases

CHENNAI – The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a writ petition filed by journalist A. Shankar, popularly known as ‘Savukku’ Shankar, in which he alleged harassment and unlawful surveillance by the Greater Chennai City Police. While finding no prima facie material to support the claims of interference, the court issued significant directions to expedite the investigation and trial of 37 criminal cases pending against him.

The judgment was delivered by Honourable Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan on a petition filed by Shankar seeking action on his complaints against the police and an order to prevent the Commissioner of Police from interfering with the operations of his media organization, Savuku Media.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, A. Shankar, who described himself as a video journalist and whistleblower committed to exposing corruption and police misconduct, approached the High Court with a criminal writ petition. He contended that his work had made him a target of the Chennai Police Commissioner.

Shankar alleged that he and his staff were subjected to "constant unlawful surveillance and harassment," which he argued was a misuse of state machinery and an infringement of his fundamental rights to freedom of speech and personal liberty under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. He stated that his complaints to the Home Secretary and the Director General of Police, filed in February, May, and June 2025, had gone unanswered.

Arguments in Court

Mr. P. Rajkumar, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the inaction on the complaints amounted to a "statutory dereliction" by the authorities, necessitating the court's intervention to protect the petitioner's rights and the functioning of his media house.

In response, Mr. J. Ravindran, the Additional Advocate General, informed the court that the petitioner's complaints had already been enquired into and disposed of by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government on July 28, 2025. He presented the official proceedings to the court.

Furthermore, as per a previous court direction, the police submitted a detailed report listing all pending criminal cases against Shankar. The report revealed a total of 38 cases, of which:

- 13 are currently under investigation.

- 24 have culminated in charge sheets and are pending trial in various courts.

- 1 case has been closed as a "Mistake of Fact".

The charges in these cases span various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Information Technology Act, and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act.

Court’s Judgment and Key Directives

After reviewing the extensive list of pending cases, Justice P. Velmurugan concluded that there was no prima facie evidence to substantiate the petitioner's claim of targeted interference by the Chennai Police Commissioner.

The court observed, "It is seen from the above report that already several complaints have been registered against the petitioner, in which some cases are under investigation and in some of the cases charge sheets have been filed and the petitioner is facing trial. Therefore, prima facie there is no material to show that the third respondent is interfering with the functioning of the petitioner's organization."

While dismissing the petition, the court issued two crucial directives to ensure the timely resolution of the pending litigations:

1. For Investigating Agencies: The jurisdictional police were directed to complete the investigation in the 13 pending cases and file final reports within four months .
2. For Trial Courts: The respective trial courts were instructed to expedite the proceedings in the 24 pending trial cases and dispose of them within six months .

The court also granted Shankar the liberty to challenge the government's disposal of his harassment complaints through appropriate legal channels if he remained aggrieved.