Chennai, December 27, 2025: Popular YouTuber and video journalist A Shankar, widely known as ‘Savukku’ Shankar, was released from Puzhal Central Prison on Saturday after the Madras High Court granted him interim bail for three months. The decision comes in the backdrop of his recent arrest and ongoing health concerns, raising questions about repeated legal actions taken against the journalist in the past.

Shankar, who is also the CEO of Savukku Media Private Limited, was taken into custody on December 13, 2025, from his Chennai residence. His arrest was linked to allegations of assaulting and extorting a film producer. Following his release, Shankar shared a photograph on social media platform X, accompanied by a defiant message: “Did you think I would be defeated?”

Legal Proceedings and Bail

The interim bail was granted after a hearing on December 26 by a vacation bench comprising Justices S M Subramaniam and P Dhanabal. The appeal was filed by Shankar’s mother, A Kamala, who sought her son’s release on the grounds of providing him necessary medical treatment. The court noted Shankar’s pre-existing medical conditions, including cardiac ailments and diabetes, as key considerations in its decision.

In its order, the bench highlighted that given the submissions made before it, the repeated curtailment of Shankar’s personal liberty, and the medical concerns, it was fit to release him on interim bail for a period of 12 weeks, from December 26, 2025, to March 25, 2026. The court directed Shankar to provide a personal bond of ₹1 lakh to the Prison Superintendent as a condition of his release.

Observations on Law Enforcement Actions

The court’s order also drew attention to the pattern of repeated legal actions against Shankar. Noting his history as a YouTube journalist who frequently posted videos critical of government actions, the bench observed that Shankar has repeatedly been targeted through detentions under the Goondas Act and other measures. The court recalled that a previous detention order against him was set aside in August 2024, only for a subsequent detention order to be issued immediately afterward.

“This is highly unusual where the same individual has been slashed with two detention orders and the second detention order was passed immediately after the first was set aside,” the court remarked. It further highlighted that such actions raise serious concerns about potential misuse of law enforcement powers and could cause disrepute to the police and other state agencies.

The bench emphasized the need for due process of law to be respected, and cautioned against its misuse to target individuals who may have expressed dissent or fallen out of favour with the state government. “This court is unable to understand why one particular individual, a YouTube journalist, has repeatedly been incarcerated by the law enforcement agency. It raises suspicion as to whether he has become a target of the ruling dispensation,” the bench observed.

Context and Previous Detentions

Shankar’s repeated encounters with law enforcement have been widely covered in media circles. He is known for his investigative reporting and YouTube content that often critically examines state government policies and actions, particularly in Tamil Nadu. Previous incidents include detentions under preventive laws and allegations of mental harassment, which the court cited as part of the pattern of targeting.

Legal experts observing the case have noted that interim bail for medical reasons is a common remedy in India’s judicial system, especially when inmates suffer from chronic illnesses that require ongoing treatment. In Shankar’s case, the court specifically referenced cardiac and diabetic conditions, which could worsen if adequate medical care is not provided in prison.

Reaction and Public Response

Following his release, Shankar’s statement on X signaled his determination to continue his work despite repeated legal hurdles. Public reactions have been mixed, with supporters applauding the court’s decision and expressing concern over what they view as a pattern of targeting critical journalists, while critics argue that legal actions against him stem from allegations of criminal activity, including assault and extortion.

Legal and Ethical Implications

The Madras High Court’s observations touch on broader questions regarding the balance between state authority and freedom of expression. Repeated detentions of a single individual, especially a journalist, can raise concerns under constitutional protections, including the right to personal liberty under Article 21 and the freedom of speech under Article 19.

The interim bail order underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that health considerations and due process are upheld, even when the accused is involved in cases attracting public scrutiny. It also serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to exercise caution and fairness, avoiding the perception of selective targeting or harassment.

Way Forward

Shankar is now expected to focus on his health and comply with the conditions of his interim bail until March 25, 2026. The case will continue to be monitored by the Madras High Court, and future proceedings may address both the substantive criminal allegations and the larger questions of legal propriety and individual rights.

Meanwhile, the case has sparked discussions across legal and media circles regarding the treatment of journalists, the use of preventive detention laws, and the intersection of criminal justice with freedom of expression in India. Legal analysts have suggested that Shankar’s situation may set precedents for future cases where journalists face repeated detentions on grounds perceived as politically motivated.