On 8 April 2024, the Supreme Court reinstated the bail that had been granted to the YouTuber A Duraimurugan Pandiyan alias Sattai, in a case where he was accused of making derogatory comments against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin. The panel consisting of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan overturned the decision to revoke Sattai’s bail, stating that there was no evidence to suggest he had abused the freedom granted to him.
During the proceedings, Justice Oka directed a question to Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who represented the State, highlighting the significance of the case questioned, “If before elections, we start putting behind bars everyone who makes allegations on YouTube, imagine how many will be jailed?”
When the court was asked to impose a condition on the Youtuber to refrain from making scandalous remarks while on bail, the Bench expressed doubt. Justice Oka queried Rohatgi about who would determine whether a statement qualifies as scandalous or not.
The court was addressing Sattai’s legal challenge against a Madras High Court decision that revoked his bail, noting that shortly after providing an undertaking to the court, which led to his bail, Sattai committed another offense by making derogatory comments about the Tamil Nadu CM. Displeased by this decision, Sattai appealed to the Supreme Court. His plea was acknowledged in July 2022, when the Supreme Court upheld the bail granted to him in August 2021. Consequently, Sattai remained on bail for over 2.5 years.
In defense of the State’s position, Rohatgi highlighted two FIRs filed against Sattai in December 2022 and March 2023. Upon examining the FIRs, the Court observed that the accusations therein related to (i) participation in a protest against the demolition of Babri Masjid and (ii) Sattai and others vehemently demanding the release of certain individuals in custody.
The Supreme Court remarked, “Merely protesting and expressing one’s views does not amount to a misuse of the liberty granted by this Court. Moreover, we are of the opinion that the reasons cited in the challenged order do not warrant the cancellation of bail,” and consequently reinstated the bail order. Before concluding the matter, the Bench clarified that the State could seek the cancellation of Sattai’s bail if he abuses the freedom granted to him.
(With Inputs From LiveLaw)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.