The Supreme Court slammed a journalist for a defamatory YouTube video targeting a woman politician, reminding that only courts decide guilt. Interim bail was extended as the case proceeds.
New Delhi: On July 25, the Supreme Court of India strongly criticised a journalist from Kerala for uploading a defamatory video against a well-known woman politician on his YouTube channel called “Crime Online.”
The court told the journalist that criminal cases and punishments cannot be decided based on YouTube videos, and only courts of law have the power to decide on guilt or innocence.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan, while hearing the matter, made sharp observations. Justice Nagarathna said,
“You want to convict people based on your YouTube videos? Conviction or acquittal doesn’t happen based on a YouTube video. Courts do that.”
The bench further commented on the content of the YouTube channel, saying,
“Say some nice things on YouTube. Why do you put this crime online, etc.? Something nice happening in Kerala, God’s own country, speak about that.”
The case involves journalist Nandakumar T P, who was booked under multiple charges by the Kerala police. These include offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly insulting the modesty of a woman, criminal intimidation, and publishing content intended to harm the reputation of the woman politician.
He was also booked under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, which deals with the electronic publication or transmission of obscene material.
According to the state police, the YouTube video posted by Nandakumar had
“derogatory, sexually coloured, and threatening remarks”
that were directed at the woman political leader. The purpose of the video, as per the complaint, was to insult and humiliate her.
The Kerala High Court had earlier, on June 9, rejected Nandakumar’s request for anticipatory bail and had asked him to surrender before the police. In response, Nandakumar filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the high court’s decision.
While hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court did not pass a final judgment on the anticipatory bail but extended the interim bail that had already been granted to the journalist.
This means that Nandakumar has temporary protection from arrest until the next court hearing.
The Supreme Court’s remarks send a strong message regarding the responsible use of digital platforms like YouTube.
The bench reminded content creators that online platforms should be used to share positive stories and not defamatory or harmful content targeting individuals, especially public figures.
The court’s statements –
“You want to convict people based on your YouTube videos? Conviction or acquittal doesn’t happen based on a YouTube video. Courts do that.” and “Say some nice things on YouTube. Why do you put this crime online, etc.? Something nice happening in Kerala, God’s own country, speak about that.” –
reflect a growing concern over the misuse of digital media and stress the need for content regulation within the bounds of the law.
Case Title:
Nandakumar T.P. vs. State of Kerala
Click Here to Read Our Reports on YouTube
