Chennai court sentences YouTuber 'Savukku' Shankar to three years in prison in harassment case
A city court in Chennai on Tuesday convicted and sentenced YouTuber Savukku Shankar to three years of imprisonment in a case concerning allegedly defamatory remarks and threats made against a former television newsreader.
The complainant, Mahalakshmi, is a former news anchor and an advocate. She first lodged a complaint against Shankar in 2013, alleging that he had published defamatory remarks about her on his 'Savukku' website. She subsequently filed a case before the Egmore court, alleging that Shankar and his associates had threatened her and fabricated documents.
During the trial, the complainant's side argued that Shankar had deliberately spread defamatory allegations against her and issued threats, which warranted legal action. Shankar's counsel contested this, telling the court that the allegations and complaints against him were completely false.
Delivering the verdict on Tuesday, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Sivashakthi held that the charges against Shankar under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act were proved, and sentenced him to three years in prison. The judge also granted him 30 days to enable him to file an appeal.
The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act is a state law dealing with the harassment of women. Section 4 relates to the offence of harassment and provides for imprisonment and a fine. The provision operates alongside other criminal law provisions on defamation and criminal intimidation, which were earlier contained in the Indian Penal Code and are now carried over into the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
In India, defamation is both a civil wrong, where a person may seek damages, and a criminal offence, where a court may impose a prison term, a fine, or both. Courts have held that the right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions, including on grounds of defamation. Cases such as this one therefore turn on the facts placed before the court and on whether the prosecution has proved its charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The court's decision is a trial court verdict. A convicted person can challenge it before a higher court, and the sentence may be suspended while an appeal is pending. The 30 days granted by the magistrate are meant to give Shankar time to take that legal route. Until the appeals process is complete, the verdict remains open to challenge, and the findings of the trial court will be examined afresh by the appellate court.
The case has been followed closely in Tamil Nadu, where Shankar is known for his online commentary and where his legal battles have drawn public attention. Tuesday's order concerns one specific complaint, and the sentence relates to that complaint alone.
