Today, On 28th January, The Kerala High Court has advised right-wing activist Rahul Easwar to advocate for the rights of all citizens, not just men. Justice PV Kunhikrishnan emphasized that Easwar should broaden his focus to include everyone, regardless of gender. This direction came during a case where Easwar’s activism was seen to primarily address men’s issues. The Court highlighted the need for inclusive advocacy for all sections of society.
The Kerala High Court advised to right-wing activist and public commentator Rahul Easwar, who has recently been vocal about men’s rights.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan advised Easwar to advocate for the rights of all citizens, rather than focusing solely on men’s rights.
The judge remarked,
“You are a champion of men. (But) you should be a champion of citizens, not men alone,”
This comment came in response to Easwar’s proposal to establish a men’s commission similar to the women’s commission.
Also Read: Around 1.10 Lakh Cases Disposes in 2024: Kerala High Court
The Court was hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by Easwar, seeking protection against potential police action after a Malayalam actress warned that she might file a complaint against him for his remarks about her clothing choices on television.
Previously, the Court had denied interim relief to Easwar. After reviewing the police report on Tuesday, the Court dismissed the petition, noting that no crime had been registered against him thus far.
The judge stated,
“No further orders necessary, but I make it clear that if any case is registered against the petitioner alleging a non-bailable offence, based on the complaint of the victim mentioned in the bail application, two weeks prior notice shall be given to the petitioner. Before taking any coercive steps, with the above instruction the bail application is disposed of,”
However, the Court expressed concern over Easwar mentioning the victim’s name in his bail plea.
The judge said,
“Why did you mention the name of the victim in the bail application? Is it proper? Can the Supreme Court’s directions be violated? Suppose the victim says that I have no objection? Can I mention the name? It’s not proper. You can make general statements; don’t individualize,”
The controversy began with a high-profile sexual harassment case involving businessman Boby Chemmanur. The actress in question accused Chemmanur of sexual misconduct, resulting in his arrest following the registration of an FIR. He was later granted bail by the Kerala High Court.
In the aftermath of this case, Easwar participated in several media discussions, during which he made comments regarding the actress’s clothing choices. His remarks sparked significant attention and criticism. The actress subsequently took to social media to express the mental distress caused to her and her family by Easwar’s comments, indicating that she might pursue legal action against him.
Concerned about a potential FIR and legal consequences, Easwar sought anticipatory bail from the High Court. In his petition, he argued that his comments were not intended to insult or defame the actress but were meant as constructive criticism intended to promote modesty to the younger generation. He asserted that his statements had been misinterpreted and emphasized that he did not aim to defend Chemmanur’s alleged actions or defame the actress.
Also Read: “No Estoppel Against Court’s Errors” – Kerala High Court Recalls Child Custody Order
During the hearing, the Public Prosecutor presented a police report indicating that Easwar had not been accused of any crime related to the FIR filed against Chemmanur. The report noted that a complaint had been lodged at the Central Police Station against Easwar, alleging that he was inciting others to defame the complainant on social media.
However, the police clarified that a preliminary inquiry was still ongoing, and no formal case had been registered against Easwar.
The report further suggested that the Court could dismiss the anticipatory bail petition since no crime had been registered against Easwar thus far. The Court accepted this argument and dismissed the plea.
Advocates Alex K. John, Ninan Thomas, Reena Jacob, and Gego George represented Rahul Easwar.
Case Title: Rahul Easwar v State of Kerala
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
