Advocates:
SAJITH KUMAR V., SHRI.VIVEK A., V., SHRI.GODWIN JOSEPH, SHRI.SANKAR INDUCHOODAN, SMT.APARNA CHANDRAN

The legal document clearly emphasizes that social media postings are not inherently liable for prosecution under laws related to defamation or nuisance unless they meet specific legal criteria. For a social media comment to constitute an offense under laws such as IPC Section 153A or Kerala Police Act Section 120(o), there must be an actual harmful intent, promotion of enmity, or cause of nuisance that satisfies the statutory requirements (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

In this case, the court found that the petitioner’s social media comment did not fulfill these criteria. Specifically, the comment did not promote enmity or cause nuisance in a manner that meets the legal definitions outlined in the statutes (!) (!) (!) . The court also noted that the words used were not defamatory nor capable of causing nuisance, and the allegations did not establish the essential ingredients for prosecution under the relevant laws (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the court underscored that mere expression of unwarranted or provocative opinions on social media, especially when they do not cause actual harm or meet the statutory thresholds, should not lead to criminal prosecution. It highlighted the importance of respecting elders and maintaining civility in public discourse, but clarified that the law requires more than provocative statements to justify criminal charges (!) (!) .

Therefore, the court held that the prosecution under the cited laws was not justified, and the proceedings against the petitioner were to be quashed, reinforcing the principle that not all social media comments automatically attract criminal liability unless they meet the specific legal standards for harm or nuisance (!) (!) .