'How many people will be jailed before the elections': Why did the Supreme Court say this? | leader

Leader Online Desk : The Supreme Court today (8th) granted bail to a YouTuber accused of making derogatory remarks against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin. In this case, the Supreme Court quashed the order of the Madras High Court. Also, if we start jailing all the YouTube accusers before the election, you can imagine. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who argued on behalf of the Tamil Nadu government, also asked the Supreme Court that how many people will be jailed?

What is the matter?

YouTuber Sattai Duraimurugan was arrested by the Tamil Nadu Police in 2021 for criticizing Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin and others in his YouTube videos. The state government arrested him in this case. Initially, the Madras High Court granted him bail with a condition to avoid derogatory remarks. However, in June 2022, following a plea by the state government, Duraimurugan's bail was revoked citing his continued abusive remarks despite the promise.

YouTuber's run to the Supreme Court

The Madras High Court ordered the cancellation of the bail of YouTuber Duraimurugan Sattai. The action came after Sattai once again made derogatory remarks against the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. He had approached the Supreme Court against this. The bail application was heard before a bench of Justice Abhay Oak and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

YouTuber Duraimurugan Sattai cannot be said to have abused his freedom. At this point, Justice Oak told senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi (appearing for the state government) that you can imagine if we start jailing all the YouTube accusers before the elections. How many people will be imprisoned?

It is up to the court to decide whether a statement is objectionable or not

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state of Tamil Nadu this time, requested the judge to impose strict conditions to prevent the YouTuber from making defamatory comments after being granted bail. Questioning who will decide whether a statement is objectionable, the judge rejected the demand, saying “it is for the court to decide what is objectionable and what is not”.

Also Read: