Spread the love
Technology Must Be Used for Good Purposes”: Supreme Court Says While Hearing youtuber’s Plea against Cancellation of Bail


In 2021, the bail was granted to the youtuber Sattai Duraimurugan by the High court where he allegedly made derogatory statements against the chief minister of Tamil Nadu M K Stalin.

 The Supreme Court observed the hearing of plea made by youtuber Sattai Duraimurugan against the order of madras high court cancelling his bail last year.

It was very well clarified by the counsel of the state before the bench of justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna that the statement made by the Sattai Duraimurugan is derogatory and he also violated the conditions and rules of bail that’s why his bail was cancelled by the Madras high court.

The counsel of the petitioner also said that neither he did anything derogatory or disparaging nor he violated the conditions of the bail. He further said that he post sarcastic comments whenever any politician do something wrong.

 His intention was not specifically to defame any political leader. So, whether it is defamatory or not, it should be checked.

The counsel for the state told the bench that the petitioner was granted bail last year only on the undertaking to the high court that he would not post any derogatory video or comment on social media.

The counsel says that he still not followed the terms and conditions of the bail and continued to post and comment.

Due to his habit of spreading fake news, lots of cases got registered against him.

But, the petitioner stated the fact that he never intended to upload anything which in itself is disparaging. He always made comments and videos which are pertaining to the political, social issues and factors.

He also says that youtube also have some rules and guidelines, which cannot let people put anything derogatory on that platform. And if anyone violates the guidelines made by the you tube than a FIR gets lodged against that person.

The bench asked the petitioner again that whether he uploaded any content which is derogatory or not. And the bench adjourned the matter to April 28 seeking the details on the counsel on the state’s hand.

Written by- Jyoti student of BA.LLB (2nd semester) at Army Institute of Law, Mohali


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *