‘Savukku’ Shankar. Photo: X/@SavukkuOfficial
The Madras High Court on Friday (January 23, 2026) issued a gag order against YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar and directed him not make any statement or comment, directly/indirectly, or in any manner whatsoever, regarding the criminal cases pending against him in any forum including the print, electronic and social media.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and M. Jothiraman passed the orders while imposing additional conditions on him for continuing to enjoy the interim bail that had been granted to him on December 26, 2025 by a Christmas vacation Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and P. Dhanabal in 17 criminal cases.
Though the Greater Chennai City police had filed an application to cancel the interim bail granted to the YouTuber for a period of 12 weeks, the Bench refrained from cancelling the bail since it was reported that he had taken treatment in a private hospital for his ailments on January 16 and had been advised bed rest for 15 days.
However, since the police claimed that he was making misleading claims regarding his health, the judges directed the YouTuber to appear before a medical board to be constituted by the Dean of Government Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital on February 2, 2026 for a thorough medical examination.
The Dean was directed to submit the medical report, in a sealed cover, before the court on February 3, 2026. In the meantime, the judges ordered that the YouTuber should not make statements concerning the complainants against him, the investigating officers or the conduct of investigation in any public forum.
The Division Bench also ordered that he should not “contact, interact, or communicate with the co-accused or any of the witnesses in the case, either personally, telephonically, electronically, or through any third party, and shall not attempt to influence, intimidate, or interfere with them in any manner.”
The Bench also wrote that he should “confine his movements strictly to the purpose of medical treatment and legal consultation and shall not engage in any activity that may impede or prejudice the investigation. Any violation of the above conditions shall be viewed seriously and may result in cancellation of interim bail without further reference to this court.”
The judges were convinced the submissions of Additional Public Prosecutor R. Muniyapparaj that the YouTuber had indeed violated some of the conditions imposed by the Christmas vacation Bench by not cooperating with the investigation and intimidating the witnesses through the videos that he posted on his YouTube channel after obtaining interim bail.
“The right (to freedom of speech and expression) guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions. When a criminal investigation is pending and the person making such statements is himself an accused, public commentary on the complaint, the complainant, the investigating agency, or the evidence cannot be claimed as a protected right,” Justice Velmurugan wrote.
He went on to state: “Such conduct has the potential to prejudice the investigation, influence witnesses, and obstruct the administration of justice, and therefore falls outside the protective ambit of Article 19(1)(a)…. Before parting with this case, this court wishes to observe that video journalists must adhere to high ethical standards to maintain public trust and credibility. In the digital age, they are on the front lines in combating misinformation and disinformation.”
Published – January 23, 2026 09:15 pm IST
