Supreme Court restores bail of Youtuber Sattai Duraimurugan accused of making derogatory statements against CM Stalin

Read Time: 03 minutes

Synopsis

The Youtuber's bail was cancelled by the High Court upon a plea by the State seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that even after filing an undertaking the accused continued to make derogatory remarks against the Chief Minister

A division bench of the Supreme Court today restored the bail granted to Youtuber Sattai Duraimurugan, arrested for allegedly making derogatory statements against the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu MK Stalin.

While doing so, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said, "If before elections we start putting everyone behind bars who makes allegations on Youtube, imagine how many will be jailed?".

Furthermore, the court refused to pass any directions on the submission made by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State, that a condition be imposed on Sattai, asking him not to make any scandalous remarks while on bail.

Court was hearing an SLP filed by Sattai challenging the Madras High Court's order whereby his bail was canceled on a plea by State Government noting that the social media intermediaries should ensure that the content uploaded on their platform complies with their policies.

A bench of Justice B Pugalendhi had noted that if the intermediaries are not removing the content even when the offensive content is brought to their notice, the authorities shall book the intermediaries as well.

Duraimurugan was arrested by the police for allegedly making derogatory remarks against the Chief Minister and others. However, later on, the High Court had allowed bail to him on the condition that he would not make any derogatory remarks against anyone.

In furtherance of this, the State Government moved the High Court seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that even after filing an undertaking the accused continued to make derogatory remarks against the Chief Minister.

Case Title: A. Duraimurugan Pandiyan Sattai vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police