New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea filed by popular Tamil YouTuber and journalist Savukku Shankar, seeking the unsealing of his office in Chennai. The Bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, observed that the petitioner must exhaust alternative statutory remedies before approaching the constitutional courts.
The 'Savukku Media' office was sealed by the Tamil Nadu Police in connection with an alleged extortion case filed by a film producer.
When the matter came up for hearing, the Bench expressed reluctance to bypass the standard criminal procedure. Senior Advocate Balaji Srinivasan, appearing for Shankar, argued that the sealing of the property was illegal and sought a direction to the police to return seized electronic devices.
However, the Court remained firm that such grievances must be addressed by the jurisdictional Magistrate, who is empowered to decide on the custody of seized property. Dismissing the petition, Justice Dipankar Datta orally remarked:
"Don't think the writ court is the panacea for all ills. Dismissed."
The Bench clarified that since the Madras High Court had already granted liberty to approach the Magistrate, there was no reason for the Supreme Court to intervene under Article 32.
The controversy stems from an FIR registered against Shankar involving allegations of assault and extortion. Following his arrest, the police sealed the premises of his media outlet. Shankar had previously approached the Madras High Court, which, on December 30, 2025, refused to stay the sealing operation.
The High Court had explicitly directed Shankar to file an application under Sections 105 to 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 451/457 of the CrPC). These sections mandate that police must report seizures to a Magistrate, who then has the discretion to release property to the owner on bond.
This order serves as a reminder of the Supreme Court's "hierarchy of remedies" doctrine. While the apex court is the guardian of fundamental rights, it frequently discourages "forum hopping" where petitioners skip lower courts to seek quick relief from the top. For Savukku Shankar, who has faced a barrage of legal actions from the Tamil Nadu state machinery, this means the battle for his infrastructure will now have to be fought in the local Magistrate court, a process that could be considerably slower than a Supreme Court writ.