In a significant affirmation of free speech principles, the Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against two individuals accused of making critical remarks in a WhatsApp group regarding contributions to the Kerala Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF) for victims of the Chooralmala Mundakkai landslide. The Court held that prosecuting citizens merely for expressing dissent or criticising the government strikes at the heart of constitutional democracy.
The ruling, delivered on July 4 by Justice V.G. Arun in Gowri Sankari V.S. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors., emphasised that fair criticism is an essential component of democratic governance and well within the bounds of law.
“That the comments are not palatable to a group of people or even to the Government, is no reason to initiate criminal prosecution... Fair criticism and right to express dissent is intrinsic to the concept of democratic governance. Clamping persons expressing dissent or raising criticisms with criminal cases is an affront to the democratic values enshrined in our Constitution,” the Court observed.
The petitioners, Gowri Sankari V.S. and Prasanth Bellulaya, had allegedly posted comments in a closed WhatsApp group criticising the State government’s handling of CMDRF donations and urging members to verify the credentials of those soliciting contributions.
The State alleged that such comments could deter contributions and incite unrest, framing charges under:
- Sections 192 (provocation with intent to cause riot) and 45 (abetment) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Section 51 (punishment for obstruction) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005
- Section 120(o) (causing nuisance) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking to quash trial court proceedings, contending that their remarks were part of a legitimate private discussion and did not cross any legal limits.
Court’s Analysis
The Court found the charges legally unsustainable, reasoning as follows:
- No intent to provoke riots: Criticism of the government, even if sharp, cannot be stretched to constitute provocation under Section 192 BNS.
- No public nuisance: Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act was inapplicable as the remarks were made in a closed group.
- No obstruction of official duties: Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act applies only where a public servant is obstructed or disobeyed in their duties. A general appeal for contributions to CMDRF is not a formal direction from a public servant.
The Court concluded that even if the prosecution’s version was accepted in full, the remarks did not meet the statutory elements of any of the alleged offences.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed all further proceedings, reinforcing the principle that fair criticism of government action is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Appearances:
- For Petitioners: Advs. T. Madhu, C.R. Saradhamani, Renjish S. Menon, Aleena Jose, Avanthika R., and Karthik Krishna M.
- For State: Public Prosecutor Sheeba Thomas
