Court rules video content not sexually explicit, custodial interrogation unnecessary
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Kauser Edappagath, granted pre-arrest bail to T.P. Nandakumar, a journalist and chief editor of the YouTube channel "CRIME ONLINE." Nandakumar faced charges under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for allegedly publishing a video containing obscene material and sexually explicit content. The court observed that the video content did not meet the criteria for sexually explicit material as required under Section 67A, thus ruling out the need for custodial interrogation.
The case, registered as Crime No.33/2025 by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Kochi, stemmed from a video posted on Nandakumar’s YouTube channel and Facebook account, which allegedly contained derogatory remarks aimed at Kerala's Chief Minister, Pinarayi Vijayan. The prosecution claimed the video intended to incite public unrest and damage the Chief Minister's reputation.
The court noted that the allegations did not establish a prima facie case under Section 67A, which necessitates the depiction of actual or simulated sexual acts. The judgment referenced previous case law, including the definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary and other High Court decisions, to underline that the video lacked any sexually explicit acts or conduct.
Despite Nandakumar's criminal antecedents, the court emphasized that the mere pendency of several criminal cases should not preclude granting bail if the applicant is otherwise entitled. The court stipulated several conditions for bail, including the execution of a bond, cooperation with the investigation, regular appearances before the investigating officer, and restrictions on contacting witnesses or leaving the country.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in balancing the need for investigation with the protection of individual rights in the face of allegations under the Information Technology Act.
Bottom Line:
Pre-arrest bail granted to the accused under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, after observing that the contents of the alleged video did not constitute sexually explicit material as required under Section 67A, and custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary.
Statutory provision(s): Section 67, Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 192 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
T.P. Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2846358
