The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Tamil Nadu government to explain why it invoked the National Security Act against a YouTuber from Bihar who was arrested for spreading fake videos of attacks on migrant workers, PTI reported.

Last month, several videos had been shared on social media showing migrant labourers, especially from Bihar, being attacked and even killed in Tamil Nadu.

The Tamil Nadu Police and state officials as well as fact-checkers said that the claims were fake. The police filed cases against Kashyap, Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson Prashant Umrao, Hindi newspaper Dainik Bhaskar, pro-government website OpIndia editor Nupur Sharma and chief executive officer Rahul Roushan for spreading disinformation.

On April 6, Kashyap was detained under the National Security Act, which allows for detention for up to a year without trial.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud on Friday expressed surprise at the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to invoke the stringent preventive detention law against the YouTuber. “NSA against him?” he asked, according to PTI. “Why this vengeance against this man?”

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, told the court that Kashyap made fake videos claiming that migrant labourers from Bihar were being attacked in the southern state.

The Supreme Court directed the Tamil Nadu government not to shift Kashyap from the Madurai Central Prison, where he is presently lodged. It also allowed him to amend his petition challenge his detention under the National Security Act.

The court then issued notices to the Tamil Nadu and Bihar governments on the amended petition.

SC refuses to entertain pleas of OpIndia founder, CEO

The Supreme Court, meanwhile, refused to entertain petitions by Nupur Sharma and Rahul Roushan, and asked them to approach the Madras High Court instead, Live Law reported. Sharma and Roushan challenged the first information report against them.

When the case was taken up, Chief Justice Chandrachud asked Mahesh Jethmalani, the counsel representing the petitioners, why he could not approach the High Court.

“Mr Jethmalani, how can we quash the FIR under Article 32 [right of citizens to approach Supreme Court] for protection of fundamental rights]?” he said. “You go to the Madras HC.”

Jethmalani told the court that there have been cases in which FIRs have been quashed under Article 32. However, the court said that the decision to do so depended on the facts of the case.

The bench, however, granted protection from coercive action to Sharma and Roushan for four weeks to enable them to pursue judicial remedies.