On Monday, the supreme court had granted anticipatory bail to Shajan scaria , the publisher and the editor of the YouTube channel marunadan Malayali , in case resgisterd against him for allegedly broadcasting a derogatory news item against member of legislative assembly MLA over sreenijin
A bench of chief Justice of India, (CJI), DY Chandrachud and Justice ps Narasimha noted that while the statement news could be the derogatory,, I did not attract offences against the schedule, caste, scheduled tribe, prevention of atrocities act
According to him he had made the following statements
“ his statements may be defamatory but how is it against SCST act there is not a whisper of allegations and SC ST act saying some things about the father-in-law of the complainant who is from scheduled caste does not bring it under SC ST act. Now if one calls the other a cheater and the person SC ST is it offence under SC ST act but should we be teaching him a lesson because we don’t approve this statement? Is this an answer jail is a very harsh. Answer you see the court observed
The court, however, noted that the news reports published by him could be defamatory and directed him to be careful about his disclosure”. Please advise your client. Some level of disclosure is always needed.”Tell him to be bench felt so while protecting him the bench orally questioned.
The prosecution’s case was just curious in his capacity as the editor in the publisher of marunadan malayali had telecast news item containing false, baseless and defamatory. Allegations against ML Sreenijin
It was alleged that the news items was broadcast with the intent to insult MLA. Sreenin ,who belongs to schedule caste community. A special court had dismissed his application of anticipatory bail. On June 16. Only on June 1 of the Kerala High Court had refused to grant anticipatory bail, nothing that the news item in question contain insults that were intended to humiliate the MLA in public view during the hearing before Apex court today senior advocate V Giri appeared for respondent complainant argued that since YouTube is public platform from the matter must be used in public interest.