HC says COVID Posts encouraging violations can amount to Rioting

In a significant test of free speech limits during a public health crisis, the Kerala High Court stepped in to examine whether provocative social media posts made during the COVID-19 pandemic could attract criminal liability for inciting public disorder. The case raised serious questions about the misuse of online platforms to undermine government-imposed restrictions and whether such conduct could justify prosecution under penal and epidemic control laws, an issue the Court scrutinised closely before delivering a decisive ruling.

The controversy began when the petitioner, facing trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Attingal, sought quashing of criminal proceedings arising from Facebook posts allegedly encouraging people to defy COVID-19 restrictions. Charged under Section 153 IPC, Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, and Section 6 of the Kerala Epidemic Diseases Ordinance, the petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and that his posts neither intended nor resulted in rioting.

Counsel for the petitioner insisted that mere expression on social media could not be stretched to constitute criminal provocation. However, the prosecution maintained that the posts were capable of influencing public behaviour in a sensitive period when strict restrictions were imposed to curb the pandemic.

The High Court took a stern view of the matter, emphasizing the broader social responsibility during a public health emergency. It noted that the country was “reeling with the disastrous consequences of Covid 19 pandemic” when strict measures were imposed in public interest. Rejecting the petitioner’s defence, the Court observed that the Facebook posts were “likely to compel the people to violate the restrictions imposed by the Government” and went on to remark that “such conduct is not expected to be made by right thinking citizens.”

The Court found prima facie material to proceed against the accused, holding that the posts could indeed be construed as provoking violation of lawful restrictions and potentially inciting disorder. Concluding that this was not a fit case for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court refused to intervene at the threshold.

Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the accused was directed to face trial.

Case Title: Biji Garnet Vs. State of Kerala

Case No.: Crl.Mc No. 5579 of 2020

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.Girish

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Sri.M.R.Sarin

Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Smt.Anima M,

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com