Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To YouTuber Accused Of Posting "Sexually Explicit" Content Targeting CM Pinarayi Vijayan

The case arose from a cybercrime registered against the accused, the chief editor of an online YouTube channel, alleging that he uploaded a video containing obscene content intended to incite public unrest and tarnish the reputation of the Chief Minister.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kausar Edappagath examined whether the impugned content could legally be categorised as “sexually explicit” within the meaning of Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and held that “the contents of the video do not contain any sexually explicit acts or conduct. …that apart, even as per the prosecution version, the alleged post was intended to incite public mutiny and tarnish the reputation of the Hon'ble the Chief Minister, …there is no allegation that the contents in the video would deprave or corrupt the minds of the people who view it or are likely to excite lustful thoughts in them”.

Background

According to the prosecution, the accused uploaded a video with a caption referring to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in a manner alleged to be obscene and defamatory. The cyber police registered a crime alleging that the video contained sexually explicit content and was intended to incite public disturbance.

During the investigation, Section 192 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was dropped, leaving offences under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act.

The defence contended that the video amounted to political commentary expressed in rhetorical language, that it did not depict any sexual act, and that the statutory ingredients of Section 67A were not satisfied. The prosecution opposed bail, citing criminal antecedents and the need for custodial interrogation.

Court’s Observation

The High Court analysed the statutory framework governing the electronic publication of obscene and sexually explicit material, emphasising that Section 67A requires depiction of actual or simulated sexual conduct. It held that the impugned video did not meet that threshold and that political commentary, however sharp, cannot automatically be criminalised as a sexually explicit publication.

The Court observed that the statutory provision applies only where the material depicts actual or simulated sexual acts or conduct and cannot be invoked merely because language is provocative or politically charged.

Referring to the transcription of the video, the Court noted that the remarks were made in the context of political criticism and comparison relating to allegations involving public figures. The Bench held that, by no stretch of imagination, the expressions used could be construed as sexually explicit content capable of depraving viewers or exciting lustful thoughts.

The Court further observed that Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, dealing with publication of obscene material, is bailable in nature and that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case under Section 67A, which alone carried a statutory bar to anticipatory bail. It also recorded that the relevant electronic material had already been seized and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The Bench also reiterated that pendency of prior criminal cases alone cannot justify denial of bail where statutory requirements are not satisfied.

Conclusion

Finding no prima facie case under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act and holding that the alleged content did not constitute a sexually explicit publication, the Court allowed the bail application.

The accused was granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, periodic appearance before the investigating officer, and restrictions against influencing witnesses or committing similar offences.

The application was accordingly allowed on the aforesaid terms.

Cause Title: T.P. Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:7907)

Appearances

Petitioner: Senior Advocate S. Rajeev

Respondents: U. Jayakrishnan, Public Prosecutor

Click here to read/download Judgment