Today, On 15th May, The Supreme Court reserved its decision on granting pre-arrest bail to a Kerala YouTuber accused in an MLA’s case. The YouTuber faces charges related to alleged defamatory content against the MLA, sparking a legal battle that attracted widespread attention. The court’s decision eagerly awaited by both the YouTuber’s supporters and those following the case closely.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard the plea of Shajan Skaria, the owner of the YouTube channel Marunadan Malayali, who challenged the denial of anticipatory bail by the Kerala High Court in a criminal case filed against him by MLA P V Sreenijin.
Sreenijin filed FIR against Skaria under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, accusing him of deliberately humiliating the lawmaker through a video posted on ‘Marunadan Malayali’ by making false allegations and accusations.
Read Also: UP Court Grants Bail to YouTuber Elvish Yadav in ‘Snake Venom Case’
During the hearing, senior lawyers Siddharth Luthra and P V Dinesh presented their arguments on behalf of the accused and the lawmaker respectively. Dinesh argued that the lawmaker being maliciously humiliated with the video having 2.9 million followers of the YouTube channel. On the other hand, Luthra contended that the case did not warrant charges under the SC/ST Act and that defamation, a bailable and non-cognizable offense.
The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on the matter.
Justice Pardiwala stated,
“The order is being reserved.”
The appeal filed by Skaria, On June 30, against an order of the Ernakulam Special Court dismissed by the Kerala High Court. The special trial court previously denied Skaria’s request for pre-arrest bail. The high court stated that there, sufficient prima facie evidence to establish the offense under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Skaria broadcasted a news item related to allegations of mismanagement in a Sports Hostel.
The FIR claimed that the news item featured “untrue, unfounded, and defamatory claims against the de facto complainant (the MLA), a member of the scheduled caste, intended to demean him.”
Read Also: Madras High Court Orders YouTuber to Pay Rs 50 Lakh for Defaming Seva Bharathi
The FIR further alleged that the news item encouraged feelings of hostility, hatred, or ill-will towards members of scheduled castes or tribes.
According to Section 3(1)(r) of the Act,
“Anyone who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and deliberately insults or intimidates with the intention of humiliating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a public setting will be subject to punishment.”
This case particularly significant as it tests the boundaries of legal protections against caste discrimination while also highlighting the challenges faced by media personalities in navigating laws that protect individual dignity against defamation.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
