Kerala Congress Leader Booked For Social Media Post Linking CM Pinarayi Vijayan To Sabarimala Gold Theft Moves Kerala High Court
Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee member N. Subramanian has moved the High Court challenging the initiation of criminal proceedings against him for allegedly making a social media post depicting Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan with Unnikrishnan Potty, the prime accused in the Sabarimala gold theft case.The prosecution allegation was that on December 25, 2025 at 8 p.m., Subramanian posted...
Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee member N. Subramanian has moved the High Court challenging the initiation of criminal proceedings against him for allegedly making a social media post depicting Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan with Unnikrishnan Potty, the prime accused in the Sabarimala gold theft case.
The prosecution allegation was that on December 25, 2025 at 8 p.m., Subramanian posted a picture of the Chief Minister and Unnikrishnan Potty with a caption so as to indicate a connection between them.
He has been booked for the offences punishable under Section 192 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot] and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 [Penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order].
In his plea, it is stated that around 25 policemen arrived at his house during the early hours of December 27 and took him into custody without even disclosing the reasons for the arrest. It is stated that he was not even permitted him to take medicines which is supposed to take during morning hours.
The petitioner has stated that he did not resist the arrest and when taken inside the police vehicle, he understood, from the behaviour of the police officer, that it was acting on the instructions of some "higher ups".
When he was taken to the police station, there were other Congress party members and only upon their inquiry did the police reveal that the petitioner was implicated because of his Facebook post. It is stated that he was released from the police station when the general public had gathered around and was directed to appear two days later.
Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared and gave a statement admitting to making the Facebook post but the police had seized his mobile phone. After keeping it in custody for over ten days, it was returned.
In his plea, he has challenged the arrest and seizure as illegal. According to the petitioner, he uses his Facebook account to make posts with healthy criticism against political leaders and persons holding official positions. The post in question was also made as part of his right to criticise and dissent.
He also states that several others persons and media platforms also made similar posts, including BJP leader Rajeev Chandrasekhar but no action was taken against them.
“The Chief Minister of a State, who is a political appointee is not immune from criticism, nor enjoying constitutional or other protections from being criticized, as actions and the office of a Chief Minister are always required to be under a scanner, by the public and it is natural that actions, associations etc. with people, who are found to be unworthy in any manner is criticized in different forms, including by projecting their actions in social media, which is one such correction mechanism envisaged in a democratic system. The law also does not compel every citizen to respect a Chief Minister or a Minister, as the concept of respect depend on their action, which is required to be a model. When it doesn't maintain the standard of model, as in the perspective of a citizen, the citizen has the right to say that the person holding a public office is not correct in his association and that too cannot constitute an offence under any of the penal law as now exist in the legal system of this democratic State,” states his plea.
He has sought for quashing of the FIR and all further proceedings pursuant to it. Additionally, a prayer is made for a declaration that his arrest and the seizure of his mobile phone as violative of his constitutional and fundamental rights.
The petitioner has also prayed for a direction against the State to compensate him for the violation of his rights.
When the matter came up for consideration before Justice K. Babu, the special government pleader sought time to get instructions and submitted that final report would not filed before February 2 (Monday). The case is posted again for consideration on Monday.
The petition is moved by Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, Advocates Nisha George and Kavya Varma M.M.
Case No: WP(Crl.) No. 111/2026
Case Title: N. Subramanian v. State of Kerala and Ors.