The Supreme Court of India on Monday, restored the bail granted to YouTuber 'Sattai' Durai Murugan, who had been accused of delivering a derogatory speech against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin in 2021.

The ruling, delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, carries significant implications for the protection of individual liberties, particularly in the digital age where social media platforms serve as vital avenues for expression and dissent.

The case against Murugan stemmed from allegations that he had made disparaging remarks against Chief Minister MK Stalin during a public gathering organized by members of the Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) party, allegedly in violation of COVID-19 norms after being denied permission for a protest. These remarks were deemed to have the potential to disrupt public peace and tranquillity, prompting legal action against Murugan.

Following his arrest in October 2021, Murugan was granted bail by the Madras High Court in November of the same year. However, this bail was later revoked by a Division Bench of the High Court, leading to a protracted legal battle that eventually reached the Supreme Court.

During the Supreme Court proceedings, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented the State of Tamil Nadu, arguing against the restoration of Murugan's bail. The prosecution contended that Murugan's actions, particularly his alleged derogatory speech and the gathering in defiance of COVID-19 protocols, warranted the cancellation of his bail.

In its deliberations, the Supreme Court underscored the fundamental importance of free speech, especially in the context of political discourse and criticism, particularly in the run-up to elections. The Bench expressed concerns about the potential chilling effect on speech if individuals were routinely incarcerated for making allegations or criticisms via platforms such as YouTube.

The Court's decision to restore Murugan's bail rested on its assessment that he had not abused his liberty while out on bail, citing his continued peaceful protest and expression of views. The Bench emphasized the need to consider the broader implications of curbing free speech and the subjective nature of determining what constitutes scandalous or objectionable speech.

The ruling reinstates Murugan's earlier bail and emphasizes that the cancellation of bail can only be pursued if justified by compelling reasons. This decision not only upholds the individual rights of Murugan but also reinforces the principles of free expression and dissent in a democratic society.