Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G. ARUN
Gowri Sankari V.S., D/o. Vikraman V. – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
V.G. ARUN, J.
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.434 of 2024 registered at the Bekal Police Station, now pending as C.C.No.2519 of 2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg. Therein, the petitioners are facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 192 and 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (' BNS ' for short), Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 120(o) of the KERALA POLICE ACT , 2011.
2. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners posted negative comments in a WhatsApp group about the solicitation of contribution to the Kerala Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF), towards rehabilitation of the Chooralmala- Mundakkai landslide victims. According to the prosecution, the derogatory comments posted by the petitioners are capable of creating riot and were intended to dissuade the public from contributing to the CMDRF.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had only asked the members of their group to verify the credentials of the persons seeking contribution and to donate only to those who are trustworthy. According to the counsel, such a comment, post
Fair criticism of government actions is protected under the constitutional right to freedom of speech, and does not constitute grounds for criminal prosecution.
Prosecution for criticism of government actions does not violate free speech unless it incites public disorder.
Political criticism on social media is protected under the fundamental right to freedom of speech, and FIRs based on third-party complaints are procedurally unsustainable if filed without a legitimat....
Posting of offensive Tweet – Freedom of speech encompasses right to dissent, critique and express political discontent and criminal prosecution in matters of expression must be reserved only for case....
The court upheld the fundamental right to freedom of speech, ruling that the petitioner's speech did not incite public disorder or hatred, and the complainant lacked standing to file the complaint.
The court emphasized the need to protect freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and determined the FIR lacked basis for criminal charges under Sections 353(2) and 505(2).
The right to dissent and criticize public officials is protected under freedom of speech, and such speech does not constitute defamation unless it disrupts public order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
