New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday refused to interfere with the bail conditions imposed on YouTuber and journalist Shankar, popularly known as “Savukku” Shankar, questioning his conduct after being granted bail on medical grounds. The court remarked that if he was genuinely unwell, he should have focused on treatment instead of creating online videos and reels.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and stems from allegations of assault and extortion filed by a film producer against the YouTuber.
“Bail Was Granted for Medical Reasons”
Representing the petitioner, advocate Balaji Srinivasan argued that Shankar was not granted bail solely on medical grounds and that the Madras High Court had also criticized the Tamil Nadu police while granting relief.
However, Justice Datta observed that the primary reason for bail was medical, and yet, after his release, Shankar began uploading videos and reels on YouTube.
“The purpose of granting bail was not for you to make reels and videos,” the bench remarked, adding that the petitioner appeared to be misusing the liberty granted to him.
Alleged Violation of Bail Conditions
The Supreme Court noted that while Shankar’s bail has not been cancelled, the High Court had imposed clear conditions, including restraining him from speaking about pending cases. Despite this, he allegedly continued making public statements online.
The bench also pointed out that Shankar frequently approached the Supreme Court for relief instead of following due legal process.
“His laptop is seized, yet instead of approaching the magistrate, he comes directly to the Supreme Court. The same applies to his seized phone,” the court observed.
State Claims Non-Cooperation
Appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra stated that Shankar failed to cooperate with the investigation and did not hand over his mobile phone required for forensic examination. He further informed the court that despite claiming the phone was seized, Shankar later appeared in a video holding the same device.
The court was also told that the YouTuber did not even visit the hospital for which interim bail was granted. Responding to this, Justice Sharma orally remarked, “Because he was busy making reels.”
Petition Rejected
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court declined to modify the bail conditions and dismissed the petition. The bench advised restraint, noting that if Shankar was indeed ill, he should have focused on recovery instead of content creation.
Earlier, on January 20, the Supreme Court had dismissed another petition by Shankar seeking the unsealing of his Chennai office and the return of devices seized in connection with the extortion and assault case.