SUPREME COURT DIRECTS YOUTUBER TO ISSUE APOLOGY AND MAKE DONATION FOR REVEALING MINOR’S IDENTITY IN POCSO CASE:

The Supreme Court of India has advised Kerala-based YouTuber Suraj Palakaran to tender an unconditional apology and make a monetary donation for disclosing the identity of a child involved in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The directions were issued by a Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which was hearing Palakaran’s plea seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him in connection with the disclosure.

During the proceedings, the Bench noted that the child’s identity had been revealed through a video uploaded on Palakaran’s YouTube channel, “True TV.” While observing that the disclosure might not have been deliberate, the Court acknowledged that a serious mistake had been made. The judges remarked that although there was no conclusive evidence showing intentional disclosure, the YouTuber should take responsibility for the inadvertent error. The Court suggested that Palakaran issue an unconditional apology as a gesture of acknowledgment for the mistake.

The Bench further noted that since Palakaran had earned revenue from the video in question, he should consider donating a portion of his earnings towards a meaningful cause. The judges clarified that there was no compulsion to make the donation but emphasized that doing so would reflect genuine remorse. They stated that the YouTuber could “consider making some monetary donation since he had made money out of the video that led to the disclosure,” adding that such an act would demonstrate accountability and good faith.

In response to the Court’s observations, counsel for Palakaran informed the Bench that his client had already tendered an unconditional apology. The counsel requested the Court to dispose of the matter in light of the apology. However, the Supreme Court declined to do so without first hearing the State’s submissions.

Earlier, on April 1, the Supreme Court had stayed the trial proceedings in the case, expressing concern that the police authorities appeared to be “persecuting” Palakaran rather than “prosecuting” him. The Court had noted potential overreach in the police’s actions, warranting judicial scrutiny of the matter.

The background of the case reveals that Palakaran, through his YouTube channel “True TV,” had uploaded a video intending to highlight the plight of a woman who was allegedly falsely implicated in a POCSO case by her husband. According to the video, the woman’s husband had coerced their son into making false statements against her, resulting in the registration of a case under the POCSO Act. Although the proceedings against the woman were later dropped, a criminal case was initiated against Palakaran for allegedly disclosing the identity of the child victim.

The prosecution alleged that the video published on “True TV” contained details and visual material—such as photographs and case references—that made it possible to identify the child victim and his parents. Consequently, Palakaran was charged under Section 228(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which prohibits disclosure of a rape victim’s identity, and Section 23 of the POCSO Act, which bars publication of information that could reveal the identity of a child involved in a POCSO case.

Palakaran had initially approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings under Article 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The High Court partially allowed his plea by quashing the charges under Section 228(A) IPC but permitted the prosecution under Section 23 of the POCSO Act to continue. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Palakaran moved the Supreme Court, where the matter remains pending final adjudication.