Introduction:

In A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others [WP Crl 1791 of 2025; 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 50], the Madras High Court, speaking through a Vacation Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice P. Dhanabal, delivered a constitutionally resonant order granting interim bail to YouTuber and journalist Shankar @ Savukku Shankar, who had been arrested on 13 December 2025 on allegations of assault and extortion involving a film producer. The petition was moved not directly by the accused but by his mother, Kamala, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court to secure medical treatment and temporary liberty for her son, while also seeking protection against alleged solitary confinement within prison. The case unfolded against the backdrop of repeated criminal proceedings and detention orders previously initiated against Shankar, a journalist widely known for whistleblowing and outspoken criticism of persons in power. The Court was confronted with allegations that criminal law had been repeatedly deployed to curtail Shankar’s liberty, raising serious concerns regarding abuse of power, chilling of dissent, and erosion of constitutional safeguards. The Bench was required to balance the gravity of allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including extortion-related offences, against the petitioner’s medical condition, his right to personal liberty under Article 21, and the broader democratic value of dissent protected under the Constitution. In granting interim bail from 26 December 2025 to 25 March 2026, the Court’s order went far beyond an individual relief, articulating a cautionary constitutional reminder to law enforcement agencies about the limits of State power and the sanctity of civil liberties.

Arguments of Both Sides:

On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted that Shankar was suffering from serious medical ailments requiring immediate and continuous treatment which could not be adequately provided within the prison system. His mother contended that his arrest and continued incarceration were not merely a consequence of the alleged offence but part of a sustained pattern of harassment by State authorities due to his journalistic activities and dissenting voice. It was argued that just one day prior to Shankar’s arrest, on 12 December 2025, an employee of his media company had received an amount of ₹94,000 through GPay from an unknown source, and while the employee was in the process of lodging a complaint regarding the unauthorised transfer, the police abruptly arrived and arrested Shankar. This sequence of events, according to the petitioner, strongly suggested that the money transfer was an orchestrated trap designed to falsely implicate Shankar and create a pretext for arrest. The petitioner further highlighted that Shankar had previously been subjected to preventive detention orders and multiple criminal cases, all of which cumulatively demonstrated a deliberate attempt to silence him. It was stressed that such repeated curtailment of liberty amounted to mental cruelty not only to Shankar but also to his family members. The petitioner invoked Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, asserting that dissent is a protected democratic right and that incarceration cannot be used as a tool to punish or deter criticism of those in power. Additionally, concern was expressed regarding the conditions of confinement, including the threat of isolation and solitary confinement, which were argued to be wholly unjustified and violative of human dignity.

The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the allegations against Shankar were serious in nature, involving offences under Sections 296(b), 353(lxc), 308(5), 61(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It was submitted that the arrest was made in accordance with law and that the investigation pertained to allegations of extortion and assault, which could not be trivialised merely because the accused was a journalist. The prosecution sought to justify the custody by pointing to the need for investigation and the seriousness of the alleged offence, while maintaining that the police were acting within their statutory powers. However, the State did not dispute the existence of Shankar’s medical issues, though it contended that treatment could be provided under custody. The defence of the State largely rested on the legality of the arrest and the argument that no special privilege could be claimed on the basis of profession or public profile.

Court’s Judgment:

After hearing the parties and perusing the materials placed before it, the Madras High Court expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which the State machinery appeared to be repeatedly targeting Shankar. The Bench took judicial notice of the pattern of cases and detention orders initiated against him and observed that such repeated clamping down on an individual, particularly a journalist engaged in whistleblowing, raised a serious suspicion of abuse of power. The Court made significant oral observations underscoring the constitutional importance of dissent, remarking that dissent is a democratic right and that even within legislative assemblies dissent is respected. The Bench questioned the conduct of the authorities in “running behind journalists” merely because they express dissent, warning that such actions run contrary to the Constitution. The Court emphasised that if authorities believed that a person was making baseless allegations, the appropriate remedy lay in civil law, such as filing a defamation suit and seeking injunctions, rather than invoking criminal law to curtail personal liberty. The Court categorically observed that touching personal liberty in this manner interferes with the fundamental principles of the Constitution. On the factual plane, the Court took into account Shankar’s serious medical condition and the need for treatment, noting that his continued incarceration would be detrimental to his health. The Court also considered the cumulative effect of repeated arrests and prosecutions on his liberty and mental well-being, as well as the impact on his family. Observing that law should not be used as a weapon to target individuals who fall out of favour with authorities, the Bench cautioned that such conduct sends a dangerous and chilling message to citizens at large. While refraining from making final pronouncements on the merits of the criminal allegations, the Court held that the circumstances justified grant of interim bail. Accordingly, Shankar was released on interim bail from 26 December 2025 to 25 March 2026, subject to conditions that he would not leave the country and would not interact with or influence witnesses. The Court also directed that his son would surrender before the authorities on or before 25 March 2026, thereby ensuring compliance with procedural safeguards. The order reflected a careful balancing of investigative interests with the overarching constitutional mandate to protect personal liberty and democratic freedoms.