Madras High Court Grants Time for Objections on YouTuber Savukku Shankar's Medical Report
A special medical team from the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital (RGGGH) in Chennai has submitted its detailed report on the health condition of YouTuber 'Savukku' Shankar to the Madras High Court. This development follows the court's earlier directive to assess Shankar's medical status, as he is currently out on bail on medical grounds.
Court Proceedings and Legal Maneuvers
A division bench comprising Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman has officially taken the medical report on record. In a significant move, the bench has granted time until February 9 for both the state government and Shankar's mother to file their objections, if any, regarding the findings of the report. It is noteworthy that Shankar's bail was granted based on a habeas corpus petition filed by his mother, adding a layer of familial involvement to the legal proceedings.
Furthermore, the bench has admitted an impleading petition filed by Shankar himself, seeking to be added as a party to the plea originally moved by his mother. Additionally, the court has accepted a review application challenging a series of stringent additional conditions imposed on Shankar. One of these contentious conditions restricts his movements strictly to purposes related to medical treatment and legal assistance, limiting his freedom significantly.
Judicial Scrutiny and Bench's Stance
During the hearing, the bench raised a pertinent query regarding the review application, questioning whether the Supreme Court had granted liberty for such a filing. This inquiry stems from the fact that Shankar had previously approached the apex court to challenge the high court's order, indicating a complex legal battle across judicial tiers.
When senior counsel V Raghavachari, representing Shankar, attempted to elucidate his client's position, the bench responded with a firm and principled stance. The justices emphasized their impartiality, stating, "If he (Shankar) dislikes this bench, we are not concerned about it. We are just performing our duties. We treat all the cases before us in a similar manner. We do not give preference to any matter." This statement underscores the court's commitment to fairness and procedural integrity.
The bench also addressed concerns about social media circulation of observations from earlier hearings. They clarified, "We do not intend to spend our time responding to such actions. We do not want to talk about a person and make him a 'great person'." This remark highlights the judiciary's focus on substantive legal issues rather than public discourse or sensationalism.
Next Steps and Adjournment
In light of these developments, the court has directed the state government to file its responses to both the impleading petition and the review application submitted by Shankar. The hearing has been adjourned to February 9, setting the stage for further legal deliberations. This case continues to attract attention due to its implications for bail conditions, medical jurisprudence, and the intersection of social media with judicial processes in India.
