The Supreme Court of India has issued a stay on the trial against Kerala-based YouTuber Suraj Palakaran, who was facing criminal charges for allegedly disclosing the identity of a minor victim in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act case. The court took this step after observing that Kerala police seemed to be "persecuting" rather than "prosecuting" him.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard Palakaran’s plea seeking to quash the proceedings against him. The court granted relief by halting the trial while it examines the case in detail.
During the hearing, Justice Kant pointed out that while Palakaran did not directly reveal the minor's name or photograph, he had published pictures of the child's father and grandfather. This, according to Section 23 of the POCSO Act, could lead to indirect identification of the child.
Section 23(2) of the POCSO Act explicitly states:
"No reports in any media shall disclose the identity of a child including his name, address, photograph, family details, school, neighbourhood, or any other particulars which may lead to disclosure of identity of the child."
The judge emphasized that this case involved a small town in Kerala, unlike a metro city where such information might be less likely to expose the victim’s identity. He cautioned that publishing images of the family members could make it easy for people in the community to identify the child.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court also addressed the inappropriate language used in the petitioner’s plea, particularly concerning the victim’s father. Justice Kant reprimanded the choice of words, stating:
"We would like all your friends also to understand... have we lost that much decency in courts? What kind of language are you using? You are such a responsible YouTube channel owner. There is something wrong in society... a respectful language, a decent language... English has so many words of choice and you are from a state for which we are always proud... and then what kind of language are you using?"
Palakaran’s counsel acknowledged the mistake, admitted that the language used was inappropriate, and apologized before the court.
Read Also:- Senior Advocate Criticized by Supreme Court Again for False Assertions in Bail Petition
The petitioner’s legal team argued that the case against Palakaran was motivated by his criticism of certain police officers. They claimed that he never directly disclosed the child's identity but was targeted for exposing police conduct in the case.
While granting the stay, Justice Kant noted that Palakaran had indeed violated Section 23 of the POCSO Act. However, he advised the YouTuber to make amends, possibly by issuing a public apology on his channel. The court chose to intervene primarily because it believed the Kerala police were unfairly pursuing the case against him.
Background of the Case
Suraj Palakaran runs a YouTube channel called ‘True TV.’ In one of his videos, he attempted to highlight the struggles of a woman whose husband allegedly manipulated their child into making false statements against her, leading to a POCSO case. Though the charges against the woman were eventually dropped, authorities accused Palakaran of revealing case details that indirectly disclosed the child’s identity.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Affirms Bombay High Court's Ruling in Advocate Cheating Case
The prosecution contended that his video contained enough details—including images of the parents—to identify the victim. As a result, he was charged under Section 228(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 23 of the POCSO Act.
Initially, Palakaran approached the Kerala High Court for relief. The High Court quashed charges under Section 228(A) IPC but upheld the case under Section 23 of the POCSO Act. The court stated:
"Prima facie, it appears that those who watched the YouTube channel of the accused identified the victim from the inputs provided therein. Therefore, offences under Sections 23 and 23(4) of the POCSO Act are well established, prima facie, and the trial shall proceed."
Read Also:- Supreme Court Defers Ranveer Allahabadia's Passport Plea; Investigation Nears Completion
The High Court also emphasized:
"Publishing any report or comments on a child through any media, without complete and authentic information, which may lower the child's reputation or infringe on their privacy, is an offence under Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act."
"If, upon investigation, the POCSO allegations are found to be false, disclosing the minor victim's identity or commenting on the victim through media without complete information would still constitute an offence under Section 23."
Case Title: SURAJ V SUKUMAR @ SURAJ PALAKARAN Versus STATE OF KERALA, Diary No. 9256-2025
