“Technology Must Be Used For Good Purposes”: Supreme Court Says While Hearing Youtuber’s Plea Against Cancellation Of Bail

“Technology must be used for good purposes”, the Supreme Court orally observed on Thursday while hearing a Youtuber Sattai Duraimurugan’s plea against a Madras High Court’s order cancelling his bail last year.

The High Court had granted him bail in 2021 in a case where he allegedly made derogatory statements against the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, MK Stalin.

Before a Bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna, the counsel for the State clarified that the petitioner had violated the bail conditions and that’s why his bail was cancelled by the High Court.

The counsel for the petitioner insisted that he did not violate the bail conditions.

“He only used to make comments. Kindly see if he has made anything wrong. He used to make sarcastic comments against political leaders when they do something wrong. Whether it’s defamatory or not should be gone into.”

The counsel for the State apprised the Bench that petitioner was granted bail on the undertaking to the High Court that he wouldn’t post derogatory content on social media. He contended that Duraimurugan violated the terms of his bail and continued to commit impugned acts, thus committing civil contempt. Significantly, he was primarily granted on an undertaking that he has realized his mistake and will not indulge in such activities. The State also informed the court that Duraimurugan was constantly engaged in spreading such false statements in social media and a number of cases have been registered against him.

“After that he posted something on social media?”, Justice Nagarathna asked.

When asked on the petitioner’s profession, the State-counsel replied that he posts content on social media.

“I believe you earn money because you can advertise, etc. So, it’s his habit. He uploads content on YouTube…If he has violated the condition, i.e., the undertaking given to the court”.

“How long will you keep him in jail? Why should you keep this man in jail, using government resources?”, the Bench queried.

The state-counsel informed that if he’s in jail, at least he won’t repeat the offences. “Let him give an undertaking at least to this Court so that I can file a contempt against him if he violates it”.

The petitioner clarified that he uploads content pertaining to political and social issues which even includes gardening, etc.

The petitioner then stated that YouTube itself has certain guidelines in terms of uploading content and videos. “If the video is violative of the guidelines, immediately, it will be reported and an FIR will be lodged.”

“So, you say that you did not upload any content which is defamatory or derogatory?”, the Bench asked.

The Bench then adjourned the matter to April 28, seeking details on the counsel on the State’s stand.

While cancelling the petitioner’s bail, the High Court had also observed that social media intermediaries operating in India are governed by the Acts and Rules of the land. They have a duty to ascertain that videos are in accordance with the policies and guidelines. If these videos are found to be in violation, they have a duty to block such channels without insisting on FIRs or any Court orders.

Case Title: Duraimurugan Pandiyan Sattai vs State | SLP [Crl] 6127/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order