Back
to Hear Rahul Easwar's Plea Against Derogatory Remarks on Sabarimala Deities
The has agreed to hear a petition filed by right-wing activist and public commentator Rahul Easwar, seeking directions to state authorities to remove, block, and disable public access to a social media video allegedly containing derogatory remarks against the Sabarimala deities Lord Ayyappa and Malikappurathamma. The matter came up before Justice G Girish, who noted that the petitioner’s application for correction of his prayer had been allowed and that the case would be listed on after the amendment is carried out.
Background: A Long-Standing Religious and Legal Flashpoint
Sabarimala, the hill shrine dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, has been at the center of intense legal and social controversy in recent years, particularly after the ’s judgment allowing women of all ages to enter the temple. Rahul Easwar, a prominent voice from the temple’s traditionalist faction, has been involved in multiple litigations surrounding the shrine’s customs and practices. The present petition, however, arises from an alleged social media post by Dalit activist Sunny M Kapikad, which Easwar claims contains remarks that outrage religious feelings and insult the deities.
The petition underscores the tension between under and the right to protection against offences relating to religion under the . Specifically, criminalises deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. In the digital age, such provisions have become increasingly relevant as courts grapple with the boundaries of permissible speech on social media platforms.
Key Developments: Court Proceedings and Amendment
During the hearing, the court focused on procedural aspects. Justice G Girish orally observed, “I allowed your application for correction of your prayer. After that, I will consider the correction to be carried out by Registry.” This indicates that the petitioner sought to modify the relief originally prayed for, possibly to narrow or reframe the scope of the directions sought. The court also noted that steps for issuance of notice had not yet been taken, meaning the respondent, Sunny M Kapikad, has not yet been formally served or heard. The case is now scheduled for further hearing on .
Easwar’s legal team is expected to argue that the alleged remarks are offensive and that the continued availability of the video on social media platforms causes irreparable harm to the sentiments of millions of devotees. They may also invoke , which penalises publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form, though the precise legal grounds of the petition have not been publicly detailed.
Legal Analysis: Balancing Speech and Religious Sensibilities
The case presents a classic conflict between two fundamental values: the right to free speech and the right to live with dignity and religious freedom. The , in several decisions, has held that Section 295A does not penalise every expression of criticism or dislike of a religion; it requires a to outrage feelings. The question here will be whether Kapikad’s remarks, as alleged, cross that threshold.
Additionally, the court will need to consider the standard for granting in such matters. Typically, courts issue a only if there is a case, in favour of the applicant, and . Given the viral nature of social media content, the “” element may be easier to establish, but the court will also weigh the respondent’s right to free expression and the principle of against speech.
Another dimension is the role of the state. The petition seeks directions to “state authorities” without specifying which department or agency. This could include the police, the cyber cell, or the home department. The court may need to clarify whether it can issue a blanket direction to block content without hearing the platform or the person who posted it, especially in light of the , which provide a mechanism for content removal.
Impact on Legal Practice: Social Media Regulation and
For legal practitioners, this case offers a window into how courts are handling the intersection of traditional criminal law and digital content regulation. Lawyers handling similar matters should note the importance of precisely framing the prayer for relief. The fact that the court allowed an amendment suggests that the original petition may have been too broad or vague. When seeking removal of online content, it is advisable to specify the exact URL, the platform, and the legal provision under which the content is objectionable.
Moreover, the lack of notice at this stage means that the court has not yet heard the respondent. In interim matters, courts often pass in cases of urgency, but they are expected to ensure that the are not entirely bypassed. The listing on will likely involve a preliminary hearing where both sides may be heard, unless the court decides to issue notice first.
The case also highlights the growing trend of activists and public figures using litigation to police online speech. While courts have generally been reluctant to become arbiters of taste or sentiment, they have intervened when speech is clearly hateful or incites violence. The outcome here could set a precedent for how similar petitions are treated, especially those involving religious figures and deities.
Conclusion: A Case to Watch
As the matter moves forward, the ’s observations on the scope of Section 295A and the power to order content removal will be closely watched by the legal community. For Rahul Easwar, the petition is part of a broader campaign to protect what he sees as the sanctity of Sabarimala traditions. For Sunny Kapikad, the case may become another battleground for the right to dissent against religious orthodoxy. For the court, the challenge will be to navigate these competing claims within the framework of constitutional law and established precedents.
The hearing will provide the first substantive opportunity for the court to examine the merits of the case. Until then, the video in question remains accessible, and the legal arguments continue to unfold. Legal professionals would do well to follow this case, as its resolution may influence the handling of similar disputes across the country.
