Foisting cases against individuals for expressing their opinions on public issues is indicative of a fascist approach, said the Madras High Court on Friday. It expressed concern over the recent trend of registering criminal cases and arresting people for making certain assertions on social as well as mainstream media.

Justice G.R. Swaminathan wrote: “Democracy is all about opinions. In the market place of ideas, only those that have substance will stand. If an opinion is ill founded, it will fail in the long run… The target of a verbal attack can be any person. No one can be a holy cow. Prosecution is one thing. Arrest is entirely another.”

Recalling the Supreme Court to have cautioned the police, in case after case, against needless arrests, the judge said: “They (apex court’s warnings) appear to have fallen on deaf ears ears. Only if violence is incited (by the person concerned), the police will be justified in interfering. Not otherwise.”

Though the police could not be restrained in advance from acting in a “malafide manner,” the judicial magistrates and sessions courts could certainly step in to “stem the rot,” the judge said. He said, the simplest thing that the judicial officers could do was to refuse remand after the police arrest the commentators.

Even if a judicial magistrate had remanded the accused, the trial courts could adopt a liberal approach whenever the individual concerned moves a bail application and grant the relief to the accused if the only allegation against him/her was to have voiced his/her concern or made certain comments, the judge added.

He made the observations after expressing surprise over a magistrate having remanded YouTuber A. Shankar alias ‘Savukku’ Shankar and a sessions court having denied bail to him in a case booked by the Central Crime Branch police in Chennai for having allegedly spread misinformation regarding a land fraud case.

“I fail to understand as to how he was remanded to judicial custody in the first place. Even more surprising is the denial of bail by the court below. The petitioner is not asking for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) registered against him. He is only seeking bail,” the judge pointed out.

Justice Swaminathan went on to contend that the YouTuber was being hounded by the State which had slapped preventive detention orders against him under the Goondas Act, not once but twice. When the Supreme Court came to his rescue, the State circumvented the court orders by slapping successive cases.

“Such an approach betrays scant regard for rule of law. It is unfortunate that the petitioner was arrested for a petty reason. The malafides on the part of the police is evident all over. I condemn the respondent (Inspector of Police, Land Fraud Investigation Wing II, CCB),” the judge added.

After ordering the release of the petitioner on executing his own bond for a sum of ₹10,000 to the satisfaction of Saidapet Metropolitan Magistrate XI, the judge said: “I decline to impose any condition against the petitioner as I am satisfied that the very registration of the criminal case against the petitioner is not maintainable.”

The police had arrested the petitioner on December 24, 2024 on the charge that he had attempted to derail the investigation in a multi crore rupees land fraud case by publishing an interview in his YouTube channel with an assertion that it was a false case registered against an innocent.

Wondering how the petitioner’s interview to the YouTube channel could have obstructed the police from investigating the land fraud case, the judge said: “The investigating officer must be having his own dictionary, where the word ‘obstruct’ has a meaning that suits the convenience of the police.”