'Free Flow Of Opinions Essential To Democracy': Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Man Over Facebook Comment Against CMDRF

Justice V.G. Arun, delivering the judgment observed:

“Free flow of opinions and ideas is essential to sustain the collective life of the citizenry. Fear of setback to Government's initiatives, due to expression of opinion or dissent by a citizen, cannot result in Article 19(2), restricting the freedom of speech and expression, being brought into play.”

The case arose from a suo motu FIR registered by the Ernakulam Central Police Station in August 2019 after the petitioner posted a comment on Facebook stating, in substance, that direct help to flood victims was preferable and suggesting that contributions through official channels could be misused. The petitioner was charged under Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC and Sections 118(b), 118(c), and 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.

The Counsel for the petitioner contended that every citizen has the right to criticize the Government and such criticism cannot result in prosecution. Relying on Gowri Sankari V S and Anr v State of Kerala and Others [ 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 496], it was contended that the petitioner's prosecution for offences under Sections 505(1)(b) of IPC and 118(b) & 118(c) read with 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act amounts to an abuse of process of court.

The Public Prosecutor submitted that the then prevailing circumstances must be considered while considering the challenge and contended that the offence under Section 118(c) of the Kerala Police Act is attracted since contribution to the CMDRF was being utilised to provide essential services to the needy.

The Court observed that criminal action cannot be initiated, merely because the petitioner's comment is not palatable to a section of people.

“Only if the comment reaches the level of incitement would Article 19(2) kick in and only at that stage can there be prosecution under a law curtailing the speech or expression that tends to cause public disorder or tends to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State” the bench observed.

The Court further noted that, to attract offence under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC the accused must have made published or circulated any statement, rumour or report with intent to cause fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public, whereby a person is induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility.

“By no stretch of imagination can the Facebook comment posted by the petitioner be held as one intended to cause fear or alarm to the public, to such an extent as to induce any person to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility.” the court observed.

The Court further observed that the prosecution does not have a case which shows that the petitioner has caused any damage to essential service, to attract the offence under Section 118(c) of the Kerala Police Act.

It has also observed that a solitary comment by the petitioner is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 120(o) of Kerala Police Act.

The Court has also stated that Section 118(b) of the Kerala Police Act must be interpreted in the strict sense and the essential services can only be those mentioned in Section 82 of the Kerala Police Act.

“Being a penal provision, Section 118 (b) has to be interpreted strictly and hence, essential services can only be those mentioned in Section 82 of the Kerala Police Act viz., essential services rendered by police, fire brigade and persons or institutions bound to act as per the directions of the Government or District Magistrate.” the bench noted.

The Court thus allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

Case Title: Manu S v State of Kerala and Ors

Case No: Crl. M C 7737/ 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 726

Counsel for Petitioner: Suvin R Menon, Parshathy S R, Achuth Krishnan R, Cristy Theresa Suresh

Counsel for Respondent: Vipin Narayanan (PP)