YouTuber A. Shankar alias ‘Savukku’ Shankar has repeatedly demonstrated a propensity to make false statements, fabricate narratives, and disseminate misleading information to the people for the purpose of sensationalism, personal vilification, public attention, online engagement, and financial gain, Indian Police Service (IPS) officer A. Arun has alleged before the Madras High Court.

Filing a defamation suit seeking damages of ₹1 crore, Mr. Arun accused the YouTuber of giving a false impression to the people as if he possessed confidential, authentic, and inside information concerning senior police officers, politicians, public servants, businessmen, corporate entities, and others in positions of responsibility, though he actually presents falsehood as facts.

Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi has granted time till September 16, 2026, for Mr. Shankar to respond to the allegations. After hearing senior counsel P.H. Arvindh Pandian for the plaintiff, the judge granted time for the YouTuber’s counsel K. Gowtham Kumar and also advocate Arun C. Mohan for X Corporation to file their counter affidavits to the plaintiff’s applications for interim injunction.

In his plaint, Mr. Arun, a 1998 batch IPS officer of the Tamil Nadu cadre, said he had earned a high degree of respect, reputation, and goodwill throughout his career. He also claimed to have been recognised for his integrity, honesty, professional competence, discipline, and commitment to public service. However, the YouTuber had been targetting the plaintiff for quite sometime, he said.

“The first defendant (Mr. Shankar) has repeatedly abused the freedom of speech and expression and has sought to misuse online platforms for the purpose of tarnishing and damaging the reputation, character, integrity, and professional standing of the plaintiff…The defamatory publications are gravely injurious to personal reputation, professional standing, and family life,” the plaint read.

Listing links to all the offending YouTube videos, X posts, and other defamatory content posted against him by the defendant on social media platforms, Mr. Arun said the YouTuber’s activities were commercially driven, and he was gaining financial incentive to publish sensational falsehoods and defamatory material capable of attracting maximum viewership and engagement.

The court was told that the YouTuber had termed the senior IPS officer a ‘gangster,’ a ‘coolie’ working for political masters, a person who manipulates the criminal justice system for extraneous purposes, a corrupt individual, and so on. In most of the videos, the IPS officer had been referred to by name, and in others, he had been described as ‘Ice cream officer’ or just ‘ice cream,’ the plaint said.

Denying the allegations levelled against him in those videos and X posts, Mr. Arun said the YouTuber had on July 15, 2026, falsely tweeted that there was an income tax search at the residence of the plaintiff and the latter’s wife B. Yamuna Devi, an Indian Revenue Service officer, was also facing corruption charges. Attributing the false information to Central government sources, the tweet had also carried the photographs of the couple.

The plaintiff said the tweet was edited on the same day and replaced with another false, imaginary, and malicious claim that the officials from the Directorate of Enforcement had arrived at the IPS officer’s residence for conducting a search. “The use of photographs coupled with the sensational headline and false attribution to Central government sources was calculated to lend a false appearance of authenticity,” he added.

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 1, 2026) dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against Indian Police Service (IPS) officer A. Arun on the basis of adverse remarks and strictures passed against the latter in a judicial order.

Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan said, the judicial order relied upon by the petitioner records the hostile backdrop and serious personal allegations levelled by him against the IPS officer in the past. Therefore, the intent behind the present petition could not be termed as purely public spirited or bona fide, the judges said.

“The ultimate test of substance and public interest cannot be used as a shield to validate an action that is fundamentally rooted in personal animosity. In the instant case, the record is unmistakably clear about the petitioner’s personal grievance against the fourth respondent and the same completely strips this petition of its bona fide character,” the Bench observed.

The petitioner had relied upon an order of censure passed by a summer vacation Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan against Mr. Arun on May 29, 2026. Now serving as Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, the officer was then pulled up by the court for a series of preventive detention orders passed during his stint as Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police.

After quashing one such order, passed under the Goondas Act against realtor Santosh Sharma, who was facing a cheating case lodged by DMDK Rajya Sabha member L.K. Sudhish’s wife S. Poornajothi, the Bench led by Justice Swaminathan had come down heavily on Mr. Arun and recorded a finding that the detention order had been passed for “extraneous reasons.”

The vacation Bench had also observed in its verdict that the police officer was “habituated” to passing such detention orders under the Goondas Act and cited instances of similar orders passed by the same officer against the present petitioner as well as journalist R. Varaaki. It also highlighted that both those detention orders too had been quashed by the High Court.

“One Savukku Shankar had levelled serious allegations against Thiru Arun IPS. According to him, Thiru Arun IPS., had amassed wealth to the tune of a few hundred crores. Thiru Savukku Shankar also led a campaign against the previous government. He was detained as a Goonda by the very same officer vide order dated April 9, 2026,” the summer vacation Bench had written.

Underlining that specific paragraph related to the personal animosity between the present petitioner and Mr. Arun from the May 29 judgement, the Chief Justice’s Bench, now, said: “The said observation unequivocally demonstrates a personal adversarial equation between the petitioner, Savukku Shankar, and the fourth respondent.”

Holding the present PIL petition as not maintainable, the judges also said: “It is a well-settled principle of constitutional jurisprudence that a public interest litigation cannot be utilised as a strategic weapon to settle personal scores or satisfy a private grudge. Article 226 (writ) jurisdiction must not be abused by individuals who pretend to fight for justice while acting on personal or hidden motives.”

YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar, 50, has filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) A. Arun in light of the adverse findings and observations made against him by the court on May 29, 2026.

The petitioner highlighted that a Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan had censured the officer for having passed a preventive detention order against realtor Santosh Sharma “for extraneous reasons” during his stint as the Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police.

Then, the Division Bench had also observed in its verdict that the police officer was “habituated” to passing such detention orders under the Goondas Act and cited instances of similar orders passed by the same officer against the writ petitioner, as well as journalist R. Varaaki, having been quashed by the High Court.

What had the court said?

The Bench had said that the order against the realtor had been passed “deliberately” though there was no threat to public order because of him and that he only faced some cheating cases, including one registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by DMDK Rajya Sabha member L.K. Sudhish’s wife S. Poornajothi.

“The detaining authority (Mr. Arun) knew fully well that the case on hand does not fall within the category of public order. He also knew that he was placing reliance on events that had taken place not less than two years earlier. The detaining authority is not a novice. He is a direct recruit to IPS. He has served in various capacities. If with 28 years of experience, such an order can be passed, it would only mean that it was done deliberately and with full knowledge of the law and the facts involved,” the Bench had written.

Authoring the verdict, Justice Swaminathan had also said: “We express our severe anguish and displeasure. We reject the explanation given by Thiru Arun, IPS. The impugned (under challenge) order has been deliberately passed. We would normally not make such remark. But we are constrained to do so because Thiru Arun IPS is habituated to issuing such orders, most of which have come to the notice of this court and quashed.”

Mr. Shankar, in his present writ petition, said that the remarks made by the court against Mr. Arun were not casual or incidental observations but “constitute a serious judicial censure regarding the exercise of preventive detention powers, which directly implicates the bonafides and propriety of the action taken by the said officer in a matter affecting personal liberty under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.”

A judicial finding that the police officer had misused his power “for extraneous reasons” raises serious concerns of abuse of authority and warrants immediate scrutiny, the petitioner said and lamented that no action whatsoever had been taken against Mr. Arun so far, despite the petitioner having given a representation in this regard to the Vigilance Commissioner on June 2, 2026.

He also stated that continued failure to act against the officer despite clear judicial findings would adversely affect public trust in the administration of justice, especially when the officer concerned was at present serving as the DVAC, a position that demands highest standards of integrity and accountability.

The Greater Chennai Police has granted a three-day parole to Youtuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar, a detenu under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act of 1982, following the demise of his mother, A. Kamala.

He was detained under the Goondas Act and the detention order was served to him in Puzhal prison on April 10, 2026.