Facebook Posts Urging COVID-19 Norm Violations: Kerala HC Refuses to Quash Prosecution Under Section 153 IPC - 2026-03-09

Digital Incitement: Kerala High Court Denies Quashing of Pandemic-Era Criminal Case

In a significant ruling addressing the intersection of social media expression and public health mandates, the High Court of Kerala has dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against an individual accused of inciting public unrest. Justice G. Girish, presiding over the case, underscored that digital advocacy inciting the violation of life-saving pandemic restrictions carries significant legal weight.

The Backdrop: Digital Agitation During a Crisis

The petitioner, Biji Garnet, faced criminal prosecution under CC No. 4068/2020, which is currently pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. The legal battle originated from alleged provocative statements made by the petitioner on Facebook.

The State of Kerala contended that these posts were specifically designed to compel the public to violate restrictions imposed to curb the spread of the COVID-19 virus, thereby threatening the nation’s health and safety during a time of extreme vulnerability. The petitioner was charged under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), Section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act , 2011, and Section 6 of the Kerala Epidemic Diseases Ordinance , 2020.

Arguments from the Bar

The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was erroneously implicated, asserting that his Facebook content did not meet the legal threshold for "rioting" or provocation under Section 153 IPC . The argument focused on the premise that the posts were not inherently inflammatory and did not intend to encourage public violence.

Conversely, the State of Kerala argued that the timing and nature of the posts constituted a clear danger to the public at large. The Prosecution maintained that the content was aimed at undermining the authority of the government during a health emergency, intentionally creating a mindset designed to discard safety measures like containment zone regulations.

Judicial Analysis: Public Safety Over Individual Expression

In his analysis, Justice G. Girish drew a hard line between protected free speech and expressions that actively jeopardize public health. The court held that while citizens possess rights, they are inherently bound to adhere to government directives aimed at preserving the health and safety of the community.

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the posts did not attract Section 153 IPC . Justice Girish noted that at a time when the country was grappling with the "disastrous consequences" of the pandemic, the petitioner's conduct went beyond critical discourse, instead aiming to create a environment of defiance against essential government restrictions.

Key Observations

The High Court’s order highlighted several pivotal points regarding the limits of social media influence:

• "The contents of the aforesaid posts are likely to compel the people to violate the restrictions imposed by the Government to check the spread of Covid-19 pandemic."
• "Such conduct is not expected to be made by right thinking citizens, who are bound to abide by the directions of the authorities concerned in the interest of the health and safety of public at large."
• "There is absolutely no justification in saying that the posts made by the petitioner in social media cannot be termed as one intended to provoke rioting."
• "It is not possible for this Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to terminate the prosecution proceedings at the threshold."

The Verdict: Trial Mandatory

Concluding that a prima facie case existed, the Court refused to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to terminate the proceedings at the threshold stage. The court’s order effectively dictates that the petitioner must now submit to a full trial before the learned Magistrate. This ruling serves as a stark reminder that while the digital age offers a platform for discourse, that platform does not grant immunity for content that poses a systemic threat to public order during national emergencies.