The Supreme Court on Monday restored the bail granted to YouTuber Sattai Durai Murugan in a case pertaining to the allegedly derogatory remarks made about Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin in October 2021, reported Bar and Bench.

The case pertains to remarks made by the Naam Tamilar Katchi party member at a protest he convened in violation of Covid-19 norms, where he allegedly compared Stalin to the demon-king Ravan, from the Hindu epic Ramayana.

The top court was hearing Murugan’s plea challenging a Madras High Court order cancelling his bail in 2021. The High Court cancelled the bail on the grounds that Murugan went on to make more allegedly derogatory remarks against Stalin despite providing assurances to the contrary.

However, in July 2022, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Murugan and he has been out on bail since. On Monday, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, told a division bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan that the court should impose a condition on Murugan to not “repeat scandalous remarks” as a condition for his bail.

The court, however, said Murugan did not misuse his liberty by protesting and expressing his views. “If before elections, we start putting behind bars everyone who makes allegations on YouTube, imagine how many will be jailed,” the bench remarked.

Rohatgi responded by saying that the state government had registered two first information reports against the YouTuber in December 2022 and March 2023 for repeated offences, reported Live Law.

The top court noted that the allegations in one case pertained to Murugan’s participation in a protest against the demolition of the Babri Masjid – in December 1992 – and the second case pertained to a demand made by Murugan for the release of certain persons in custody.

“We don't think that by protesting and by expressing his views, it can be said that the appellant has misused the liberty granted to him,” the bench said. “Even otherwise we are of the view that the grounds mentioned in the impugned order cannot constitute grounds for cancellation of bail.”

The top court clarified that the state government may approach it again for the cancellation of Murugan’s bail if such grounds arise.