Some YouTube channels are turning out to be a menace to society: Madras High Court

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu says it is high time the government pitches in and controls undesirable and defamatory content

Published - May 09, 2024 03:50 pm IST - CHENNAI

‘Savukku’ Shankar

‘Savukku’ Shankar | Photo Credit: Instagram / @savukku_shankar

Some YouTube channels are turning out to be a menace to the society by publishing derogatory content just to increase their subscription and it is high time, the government steps in to control such undesirable activities, said Justice K. Kumaresh Babu of the Madras High Court on Thursday.

The oral observations were made while hearing an anticipatory bail petition filed by G. Felix Gerald of RedPix YouTube channel in a case booked against him and ‘Savukku’ Shankar under various provisions of Indian Penal Code and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act of 1988.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) E. Raj Thilak told the court that the petitioner had interviewed ‘Savukku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar recently and thereby “facilitated” the latter to make derogatory statements against women police personnel thereby lowering the morale of the entire police force.

Hence, the Coimbatore cyber crime cell had registered a case against both of them and arrested Shankar, who had been arrayed as the first accused, on May 4. Though the present petitioner had been summoned for an inquiry, he had so far not appeared before the investigating officer, the APP complained.

When the petitioner’s counsel stated that his client had been a journalist for the last 25 years, the judge said, the petitioner should have been arrayed as the first accused in the case because it was he who had prompted the interviewee to make derogatory statements against women.

“Is this what you even call as an interview?” the judge wondered and said, the petitioner would have either posed the question knowing well that the interviewee would answer it in a particular way, or he would have let the interviewee make derogatory statements and encouraged it.

When the judge wanted to know if the anticipatory bail petitioner could be ordered to appear for inquiry before the investigating officer on condition that no coercive steps should be taken against him, the APP replied that it would amount to granting anticipatory bail indirectly.

Accepting his request, the judge adjourned the hearing on the advance bail plea by a week.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.