'How many will be jailed before elections?', SC asks TN govt while restoring Youtuber's bail

'If before elections we start putting behind bars everyone who makes allegations on YouTube, imagine how many will be jailed?' a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan reportedly said.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a plea by the Tamil Nadu government against the bail granted to YouTuber Duraimurugan Sattai who allegedly made derogatory remarks against Chief Minister M K Stalin.

"If before every elections, the court starts jailing everyone, who makes allegations on YouTube, imagine how many will be jailed," a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan asked senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government.

The court restored the bail granted to Sattai and set aside the order cancelling his bail. Holding that there were no grounds to cancel bail, the bench asked the Tamil Nadu counsel as to who will decide what is scandalous.

The bench also asked the state’s counsel to look at the "bigger picture". Advocate M Yogesh Kanna represented Sattai before the apex court. The court noted that the appellant continued to be on bail for over two years through an interim order.

The bench said, it does not think that by protesting and expressing views the appellant can be said to have misused his liberty.

In November 2021, the Madras High Court had granted Sattai bail in the case where he allegedly made derogatory statements against Stalin.

In June 2022, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had cancelled the bail granted to the YouTuber, for he had made certain derogatory remarks against Tamil Nadu CM, in violation of an undertaking given to the court. Sattai moved the apex court against the high court order.

The court quashed the Madras High Court, which cancelled his bail and restored the earlier order granting bail.

The bench, however, clarified the cancellation of bail can be applied for if deemed fit. While seeking bail in a case, Sattai had submitted an affidavit to the court undertaking that he would not pass derogatory remarks against anyone.