The Supreme Court today refused to hear a plea from YouTuber and Journalist Shankar @Savukku Shankar requesting the unsealing of his Chennai office and the return of devices seized by Tamil Nadu Police. The devices were seized during an investigation into allegations of assault and extortion involving a film producer.
Supreme Court Decision
Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter. Justice Datta questioned the petitioner’s repeated appeals, noting a previous order passed on Friday. Justice Sharma expressed concern that the Court was being asked to intervene in matters of minor inconvenience.
Senior Advocate Balaji Srinivasan argued that the High Court, in granting interim bail, found the case to be orchestrated. He cited an incident involving a transfer of Rs. 90,000 to an employee of Shankar’s, following which Shankar’s office was sealed. Srinivasan asserted the police lacked the authority to seal the office.
The Court, however, declined to entertain the plea, directing Shankar to approach the Judicial Magistrate. If the Magistrate does not act, the Court stated, the matter could be revisited by the High Court. Justice Datta cautioned against viewing the writ court as a solution for every issue, adding, “Don’t take it as if the writ Court is the panacea for every relief.”
Previous High Court Action
Shankar previously filed three writ petitions with the Madras High Court seeking to unseal his office, prevent police deployment outside the premises, return seized items (devices, cash, documents seized December 13th and 17th), and defreeze his bank accounts.
On December 30th, the Madras High Court permitted Shankar to approach the Judicial Magistrate for relief, noting a report filed by the Investigating Officer. The High Court also stated that Shankar could address concerns about seized properties unrelated to the alleged crime through the provisions of Sections 105 to 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted Shankar’s arrest?
Shankar’s arrest followed a transfer of Rs. 94,000 to an employee of his media company via Gpay. The employee was preparing to report the unauthorized transfer when police arrived and arrested Shankar, with his mother arguing it was a fabricated case.
What was the Madras High Court’s initial response to the case?
The Madras High Court granted Shankar interim bail for three months in December 2025 and criticized the State police for allegedly targeting Shankar. However, the Tamil Nadu police is challenging that bail.
What is the next step for Shankar?
Shankar has been directed by the Supreme Court to approach the Judicial Magistrate for relief regarding the unsealing of his office and the return of his seized devices. If no action is taken, he may then appeal to the Madras High Court.
How might this case influence the balance between journalistic freedom and law enforcement powers in India?
Keep reading