The thug law against Chavik Shankar was repealed.

The thug law against Chavik Shankar was repealed

Chennai: Judge Swaminathan of the Madras High Court quashed the Gangster Act against Chavik Shankar. However, the case has been referred to a third judge as another judge of the bench gave a different verdict.
Popular YouTuber Chavku Shankar has been arrested and jailed in a case filed by the Coimbatore Cybercrime for defaming a female police officer. Meanwhile, a case of ganja was also registered against Chawku Shankar, alleging that his friends were in possession of ganja. Apart from this, the Chennai Police Commissioner has recently ordered his arrest under the Anti-Gondal Act as there are various other cases against him.

Due to this, the thug law was passed on Chavku Shankar. Meanwhile, the news of an attack on Chavuku Shankar, who was lodged in Coimbatore Central Jail, also created a stir. Also, Chavuk Shankar also said to journalists that he was planning to kill him while in jail, causing controversy.

In this context, a case was filed in the Madras High Court on behalf of his mother Kamala against the imposition of gangsterism on Chavku Shankar. Also, his mother filed a recruitment petition. The hearing on these petitions was going on in the Madras High Court for the last 2 days.

In this case, the inquiry in this regard came up for hearing today before the bench consisting of Justices Swaminathan and Balaji. Then, “Why was the ganja case not included in the order to imprison Chakku Shankar under the Gangster Act?” Justice Swaminathan questioned. Moreover, the judge said that this is a thug law order issued without paying attention and therefore the thug law imposed on Chawku Shankar is cancelled. Apart from that, he also said that the case was rushed to the final hearing because powerful persons kept talking to him about the case.

Justice Swaminathan said in his judgement, Second Justice Balagio said that after allowing the government to respond to the petition filed by Chavku Shankar’s mother Kamala, he would take up the recruitment petition for hearing. As both the judges gave a different verdict, the case was referred to a third judge.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here