WHY IN THE NEWS?
The petitioner T.P Nandakumar gets booked under various offences of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita allegedly committed by him in a derogatory video posted by him against a prominent woman politician.
BACKGROUND
The petitioner Nandakumar has been alleged of publishing a video on his YouTube channel named “Crime Online” which contained several derogatory, sexually coloured as well as threatening remarks against a prominent woman politician. As a consequence of which, the petitioner has been booked under section 75(1)(iv), section 79 and section 351(1)(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for insulting woman’s modesty, intimidation and intent to cause reputational harm and disseminating obscene content electronically respectively alongwith section 67 of the Information Technology Act,2000 for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
ISSUE AT HAND
On the date of June 9,2025, the Kerala High Court has issued an order wherein the court had directed Nandakumar to surrender before the police but instead, he approached the hona’ble Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s refusal of granting the anticipatory bail to him. Furthermore, the petitioner has contended before the court that the alleged video was meant for public discussion to fight against the corruption. The petitioner contended before the court that the same remarks were originally made by the then Chief Minister in 2011 and no action had been taken by the woman against the person who initially made the remarks and that he only made the factual reference.
HOW DID THE COURT APPROACH THE MATTER?
On June 18,2025, a vacation bench has granted the petitioner an anticipatory bail and directed that in the course of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the trial court which will have the jurisdiction to try it on furnishing bail and bonds to the satisfaction of the investigating officer(I.O) and he must cooperate in the investigation. Furthermore, the court has recently raised the concern over the misuse of social media by people, stressing the need for self-regulation and restraint.
WHAT DID THE COURT OBSERVED?
A bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan heard the petitioner’s plea for anticipatory bail who’s facing criminal allegation over a video which was uploaded on his YouTube channel named “Crime Online”. In response to the petitioner’s contention that the alleged video was made for public discussions, Justice Nagarathna said, “ Courts are there to convict or acquit. YouTube presentations cannot substitute a court of law…..this is not a way to fight against corruption”. Furthermore, Justice Nagarathna expressed concern over the use of YouTube for such content by slamming the petitioner’s intent to publish such material online. “What is YouTube being used for!…..Say some nice things on YouTube. Why do you put this crime online etc? Something nice is happening in Kerala, God’s own country, speak about that”, Justice Nagarathna added.
CONCLUSION
On July 25,2025, the court observed that YouTube presentations cannot replace the judicial process and heavily criticized the Kerala journalist T.P Nandakumar for his video allegedly targeting a prominent woman politician through derogatory remarks.
AUTHOR’S INFORMATION
Mansi, a third year law student currently studying at VIPS-TC under Guru Gobind Indraprastha University with a growing interest for legal research. She’s passionate about criminal justice, family law and advocacy for rights of women and children.