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.