Achi news desk-
Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Monday set aside the Madras High Court’s decision to cancel the bail granted to a YouTuber accused of making defamatory statements against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin.
"Imagine how many will be jailed before the elections if those making allegations on social media platforms like YouTube are put behind bars,” said a bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujal Bhoyan. The bench further asked to look at "bigger picture" And we ask who will decide what is scandalous.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
Arguing that not everyone who makes allegations on social media can be jailed, the bench refused to cancel the bail granted to YouTuber Sathai Durai Murugan. Murugan, who was arrested in 2021, was granted bail by a single judge bench of the Madras HC.
However, on June 7, 2022, a HC division bench canceled his bail following a state government plea alleging breach of undertaking to refrain from defamatory remarks. Murugan then appealed to the Supreme Court, which on July 25, 2022 ordered that the bail granted to him by the single judge bench of the HC shall remain in force until further notice.
On Monday, the committee noted that the temporary bail has continued ever since and said: “At the same time, we do not find a reason to cancel the bail. Therefore, we cancel the High Court order to cancel bail, and reinstate the previous order to grant bail.”
Contrary to Murugan’s request, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the state government, drew the court’s attention to two FIRs registered against him in December 2022 and March 2023. The bench noted that these pertain to Murugan’s participation in the protest against the demolition of the Babri Masjid, as well as seeking the release of prisoners The SC disagreed with the state’s argument that these were serious enough offenses to revoke his bail.
“We do not believe that by protesting and by expressing his opinions it can be said that the appellant abused the freedom granted to him. Even otherwise, we believe that the reasons mentioned in the order in question cannot be a reason for canceling bail,” it said.
(with input from LiveLaw)
