'We are taken aback': Supreme Court on Madras HC's order on filing chargesheets, completing trials against YouTuber

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has expressed its surprise over the Madras High Court's order for filing chargesheets against YouTuber Savukku Shankar in pending investigations and for completing trials within a time frame, nullifying discretion of the investigating officer and rendering the concept of fair trial a nullity respectively.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the High Court's order of July 29, 2025 by calling it "absolutely unwarranted and uncalled for".

"Other than very extreme cases, the high courts ought to exercise restraint and not issue such directions which foreclose the discretion of the executive," the bench said.

The court said, if the high court proceeds to make a direction that charge sheets should be filed upon conclusion of investigation or that a trial should be concluded within a particular time-frame, without even attempting to ascertain the stage the trial has reached, the consequence of such an order could be far-reaching.

It felt the concept of a fair trial could be rendered a casualty.

Upon hearing advocate Balaji Srinivasan for Shankar, the bench held the directions of the nature made by the High Court's judge amounts to improper exercise of writ jurisdiction and such an approach cannot but be disapproved.

Srinivasan said, Shankar approached the High Court for a direction to prevent abuse of power alleging false cases were foisted upon by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. The High Court, however, noted he faced 37 FIRs, out of which charge sheets have been filed in 24 cases. It directed for filing charge sheets in remaining 13 cases within four months. It also fixed a time frame of six months for completing the trial in 24 cases within six months.

"Filing of a charge-sheet necessarily has to be preceded by formation of a positive opinion by the officer investigating the crime that materials collected by him do warrant placing the accused for trial. If the opinion is in the negative, the officer has the discretion to recommend closure citing it to be a case of mistake of fact or otherwise," the bench said.

Finding that the HC's observations, undoubtedly, placed the appellant in a worse-off condition for having approached the writ court, the bench said, "We are also taken aback by the direction made by the judge for filing of charge-sheets by the investigating agency against the appellant."

Srinivasan said after the High Court's order, charge sheets have been filed in two cases, apparently in compliance with the directions.

For the Tamil Nadu government, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra said that the investigating officers may be granted the liberty to proceed in accordance with law and form their own opinion as to the necessity of filing a charge-sheet, based on the materials collected or to be collected.

Emphasising that the final and decisive step in the investigation, namely, the formation of an opinion as to whether or not there exists a case to place the accused on trial, must be taken by the officer in charge of the police station, the court declared that the charge-sheets filed after the HC's order would stand set aside.

The court told the investigating officer in pending matter to act uninfluenced by any observations of the High Court. It also said the trial courts would also be free to proceed in accordance with law.

Shankar has exposed alleged corruption in Tamil Nadu and faced the wrath of the ruling DMK government.