Supreme Court Stays Trial Against YouTuber Over Identity Disclosure Of POCSO Victim; Says Kerala Police Appears To Be 'Persecuting' Him

The Supreme Court today issued notice on Kerala-based YouTuber Suraj Palakaran's plea for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him over the disclosure of identity of a victim in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and stayed the trial in the case, being of the view that the police authorities appeared to be "persecuting" Palakaran instead of "prosecuting".

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Kant noted that the petitioner had disclosed photographs of the father and grandfather of the child-victim and Section 23 of POCSO Act prohibited such publications which could "lead to" disclosure of identity. For context, Section 23(2) reads thus:

"No reports in any media shall disclose, the identity of a child including his name, address, photograph, family details, school, neighbourhood or any other particulars which may lead to disclosure of identity of the child..."

The judge underlined that the case pertained to a small town in Kerala (not some metropolitan city like Delhi or Mumbai) where revealing the names and pictures of father and grandfather could easily lead to disclosure of the identity of a child.

When the petitioner claimed that he aimed to help the child-victim's mother, the bench appreciated him but expressed that he should have been careful of the legal provisions regarding confidentiality of victim's identity.

Further, Justice Kant was seen pulling up the petitioner's counsel over certain words used in the pleadings that seemingly maligned the victim's father (whom he called a monster).

"We would like all your friends also to understand...have we lost that much decency in courts? What kind of language you are using? You are such a responsible YouTube channel owner.  There is something wrong in society...a respectful language, a decent language...English has so many words of choice and you are from a state for which we are always proud...in terms of literacy rate, your quality of education, command on language...you are far ahead of other parts of the country...and then what kind of language are you using?"

Referring to the inappropriate use of words in the pleadings, the judge said that the pleadings were before a Court of Record, which shall remain available to posterity and can even be shown to future generations of the complainant as "your grandfather was branded like this". Conceding to the error, the counsel submitted that the words were "incorrect" and apologized.

Subsequently, he contended that the police registered a case against the petitioner because he criticized police officer(s). It was also stressed that the petitioner never disclosed the name or photograph of the child-victim.

In closing, while staying the trial against the petitioner, Justice Kant said that he was in blatant violation of Section 23 of POCSO Act, and therefore, it would be better if he made amends (by issuing apology through his channel, etc.). However, the relief was being granted as the bench felt that Kerala police were "persecuting" him instead of "prosecuting".

Briefly put, Palakaran runs a YouTuber channel by the name of 'True TV'. In one of his videos, he apparently sought to bring to light the plight of a woman, whose husband used their son to make false statements against her and got a case registered under POCSO Act. Subsequently, the proceedings against the woman were dropped, however, a case was registered against Palakaran on the allegation that after September 2020, he put necessary case inputs in the public domain which led to the disclosure of identity of the child (victim in a POCSO case).

The prosecution case was that in the disputed news item, published through 'True TV', necessary inputs to identify the victim and his parents, inclusive of publication of their photographs could be noticed.

Charged with offences punishable under Section 228(A) IPC and Section 23 of POCSO Act, Palakaran initially approached the Kerala High Court for quashing of the criminal case. However, his petition under Article 482 CrPC was allowed only to the extent of quashing of prosecution under Section 228(A) IPC, while that under Section 23 POCSO Act was directed to continue, with the observation,

"prima facie, it appears that, those who witnessed the YouTube channel of the accused, identified the victim from the inputs provided therein. Therefore, commission offences under Sections 23 and 23(4) of the POCSO Act by the accused/petitioner is specifically well made out, prima facie, and for which the trial shall go on."

"Going by the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 23 of the POCSO Act, publishing any report or present comments on any child from any form of media or studio or photographic facilities without having complete and authentic information, which may have the effect of lowering reputation of the child or infringing upon privacy of the child, is an offence and contravention of the same is punishable under Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act", the High Court noted.

It further observed, "if at all, on investigation, the allegations in the POCSO case are found to be false, disclosing the identity of the minor victim therein, reporting or commenting on the said victim from any form of media without having complete and authentic information, which may have the effect of lowering the minor victim's reputation or infringing upon his privacy, would attract offence under Section 23 of the POCSO Act".

Case Title: SURAJ V SUKUMAR @ SURAJ PALAKARAN Versus STATE OF KERALA, Diary No. 9256-2025