The Supreme Court on Friday restored the bail granted to Youtuber A. Duraimurugan Sattai in a case involving allegations of him making defamatory remarks against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin.

The bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the order cancelling A Duraimirugan Sattai’s bail and stated that he could not be said to have misused the liberty granted to him.

During the hearing, Justice S Oka said to Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for State, that if before the elections, the court starts putting behind bars everyone who makes allegations on YouTube, he can imagine how many will be jailed.

When the counsel requested that the court impose a condition on the Youtuber so that he does not make any scandalous remarks while on bail, the bench was not convinced. Justice Oka asked Senior Advocate Rohatgi who shall decide whether a statement is scandalous or not.

The Supreme Court was hearing Sattai’s challenge to a Madras High Court order, which cancelled his bail ruling that within a few days of giving an undertaking before the court based on which he was granted relief, the YouTuber indulged in further offence and made derogatory remarks against the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin.

Disappointed by the judgment, YouTuber Sattai moved the Supreme Court. Furthermore, notice was issued on his plea in July, 2022, when the apex court continued the bail granted to him in August, 2021. Notably, Sattai continued to be on bail for over 2.5 years.

In support of the State’s case, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi drew the court’s attention to two FIRs registered against him in December, 2022 and March, 2023. Perusing the FIRs, the Supreme Court noted that the allegations in the same pertained to the participation in a protest condemning demolition of Babri Masjid and Sattai and others speaking furiously and demanding release of certain persons in custody.

Restoring the bail order, the Supreme Court observed that by protesting and by expressing views, it can be said that the appellant has misused the liberty granted to him by the Court. The bench added that they are of view that the grounds mentioned in the impugned order cannot constitute grounds for cancellation of bail.

The bench further clarified that it would be open for the State to approach for cancellation of Sattai’s bail if he misuses the liberty granted.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the person aggrieved by a defamatory statement must have an element of personal interest. He should either be the person defamed or a family member or near relative in case of a deceased person. This observation was made by Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar while hearing a Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of Complaint dated April 18, 2018 ‘Sant Kanwar V/s. Raj Kumar Saini’, under Sections 499, 500 and 501 IPC, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak.

The Court observed that only the ‘family members’ or ‘near relatives’ of the deceased person, against whom imputations have been made, can claim to be ‘persons aggrieved’ to file defamation complaint under Section 499 of the IPC.

The Court noted the contention of Vinod Ghai, Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, that Sant Kanwar, the respondent-complainant, had no locus standi to maintain the subject complaint and stayed further proceedings pursuant to the summoning order dated June 13, 2018 passed therein.

A sub-section of Section 199 of the CrPC made it clear that no Court should take cognisance of an offence punishable under provisions of the IPC except upon a complaint made by a person aggrieved by the offence. This provision, therefore, mandates that the complaint be made by a person aggrieved.

Referring to the provisions of Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court further noted that a defamation complaint can be made by a ‘person aggrieved’. Explanation 1 to Section 499 IPC states that imputing anything to a deceased person would amount to defamation if such imputation would have harmed the reputation of that person had he been living and such imputation is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives, the Court said.

Also Read: Central Vista: Supreme Court allows foundation stone ceremony, pulls up Centre for going ahead without court ruling

The Court observed that in this case, the complainant does not claim to be a member of the family of late Chaudhary Matu Ram Hooda or his near relative, while quashing the complaint as not maintainable.