Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry v. Director General of Police & Ors.
In the High Court of Madras
Crl. OP. 18337/2020
Before Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice R Hemalatha
Decided on November 23, 2020

Relevancy of the case: Petition to register a case involving the repetitive uploading of derogatory videos on YouTube and Facebook

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 67A, 80)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 41A, 149, 482)
• The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 1998 (Section 4)
• The Tamil Nadu Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 (Section 4)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120(b), 153, 228, 294(b), 509, 506(ii))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petition is against the first accused (C.S Karnan, former judge of the Madras High Court) and the second accused (Dr M. Dhanasekaran) for allegedly repeatedly uploading videos on YouTube and Facebook which comprised indecent, obnoxious and vulgar content.
• The allegation was that the contents were derogatory and defamed former and present sitting Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court of Madras, in which the first accused also threatened to commit an act of physical violation against the womenfolk of such families.
• The petitioner filed a petition against the second respondent (the head of the Police force, Chennai) for not taking cognizance of the complaint they filed on 06.11.2020 and for not registering a case.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the Supreme Court in Re Hon’ble Thiru Justice C.S. Karnan had prohibited publication of statements of the first accused, and while the acts prima facie constitute cognizable offences, no case was registered.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that they requested to delete the YouTube channel of the first and the second accused. Accordingly, they removed 15 videos and 2 URLs.

Opinion of the Bench

• Under Section 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the police are duty-bound to prevent cognizable offences. Moreover, Section 80 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 gives powers of search, etc.
• The court directed the Public Prosecutor to ensure to take steps in this regard.

Final Decision

• The court directed for registration of the case.
• The court ordered the appearance of the second respondent on the physical hearing.

This case summary has been prepared by Tuba Aftab, an undergraduate student at IIMT & School of Law, GGSIPU, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2021.