Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 40642
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
ARUN.G.NAIR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1858 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.S.Manilal
For the Respondents: Maya M.N.
Prosecution for defamation based on social media posts requires clear evidence of illegal acts; otherwise, it constitutes an abuse of legal process.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 153 - Kerala Police Act - Section 120(o) - Freedom of speech - Allegations were made against the petitioner for sharing Facebook posts allegedly defamatory to public officials. The court found that sharing such posts did not constitute the illegal act required to establish the offence under IPC Section 153 nor did it attract the provisions of Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, stating the prosecution amounted to an abuse of process of law. (Paras 6-19)
(B) Abuse of process - Judicial scrutiny is essential to prevent misuse of laws regarding defamation and public order, emphasizing that mere criticism through social media cannot be prosecuted unless it clearly leads to provocation or causes nuisance. (Paras 12-18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of defamation based on social media posts concerning public officials. The petitioners argued there was no legal basis for the charges.
Findings of Court:
Since the allegations did not meet the legal standards for the alleged offences, proceedings were quashed.
Issues: Whether the offences under IPC Section 153 and Kerala Police Act Section 120(o) were applicable based on the actions of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that freedom of expression is fundamental unless there is clear evidence of a legal infringement. Mere sharing of posts does not constitute illegal acts warranting prosecution.
Result: Crl.M.C allowed and proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of defamation based on facebook posts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against prosecution for lack of illegal act. (Para 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 3. importance of protecting freedom of speech. (Para 11 , 18) |
| 4. court clarifies legal standards for defamation. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. prosecution deemed abusive and unsustainable. (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER
Accused in C.C No.564 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Ettumannoor has filed this Crl.MC, praying to quash the final report in Crime No.382 of 2019 of Gandhinagar Police Station and the proceedings in C.C.No.564 of 2019.
2. Offences alleged against the petitioner in the final report are under Sections 153 of IPC and 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act . The case was registered on 28 .02.2019 on the basis of a petition submitted to the District Police Chief, Kottayam by the President and Secretary of the Block Committee of a youth’s organization, DYFI. The Petition dated 17.1.2019 is produced as Annexure - I. Grievance voiced in the petition is that the petitioner who was an employee of the Travancore Devaswom Board, working in Vasudevapuram Temple, Kudamaloor had been indulging in repeatedly making heinous Facebook posts against the Chief Minister of Kerala, the Devaswom Minister and the District Police Chief, Kottayam and their pictures along with those of animals were posted. Further, it was requested in Annexure-I that stringent actions in accordance with law may be taken against such activities of the government servant, which are in violation of the Service Rules. The FIR produced as Anneuxre-II discloses that the crime was registered on the basis of Annexure-I complaint received by the District Police Chief. In the FIR, it was alleged that the petitioner, who was an employee of the Travancore Devaswom Board and a member of the organization, Travancore Devaswom Employees Sangh, with the intention to defame the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Kerala and the Hon'ble Minister for PWD and to cause political riots, shared several Facebook posts on his Facebook account between 1.12.2018 and 2.1.2019, which were defamatory to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Kerala and the Hon'ble Minister for PWD. By the said acts, the petitioner defamed DYFI represented by the defacto complainants, the Honble Chief Minister of Kerala and Honble Minister for PWD and the petitioner also attempted to cause political riots.
3. Investigation was completed in a short time and the final report was filed on 15.03.2019. Same allegation as in the FIR is repeated in the final report also.
4. By order dated 3.3.2020 in Crl.M.ANo.1/2020 further proceedings on the basis of the final report were stayed by this Court for a period of three months. The interim order was extended from time to time.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner – Mr.C.S.Manilal and the learned Public Prosecutor – Ms.Maya M.N.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the registration of the crime against the petitioner itself was a clear instance of abuse of process of law. He pointed out that the crime was registered on the basis of Annexure-I petition submitted by office bearers of DYFI to the District Police Chief, Kottayam. He contended that in the said petition, the actual request was to take legal actions against the petitioner for violation of the Service Rules. He submitted that there were no averments to make out the offences under Section 153 of the IPC or Section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act in Annexure-I petition. He further submitted that the said petition therefore, did not contain anything calling for any action by police and to set criminal law in motion. However, due to political reasons, crime was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 153 of the and 120(o) of the . He pointed out that there are significant variations in the allegations in Annexure-I petition and Annexure-II FIR. The crime was registered only to harass the petitioner. The l
