BJP leader PC George faces severe criticism Today (Feb 17) from the Kerala High Court for repeatedly flouting bail conditions and making provocative remarks. The court is set to hear his anticipatory bail plea on February 19.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOCHI CITY: BJP leader PC George has repeatedly broken the conditions set by the court when he was granted bail, the Kerala High Court observed on Monday.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan expressed strong disapproval of George’s actions, pointing out that in a previous bail order from 2022, in a case related to hate speech, one of the conditions was specifically that George should refrain from making provocative statements.
The judge raised serious concerns about George’s continuous disregard for court orders and questioned his repeated violation of instructions given by both the magistrate court and the High Court.
“There is an earlier order with a condition that he will not say such things. He is flouting the direction of the High Court, this mistake is happening again and again. You (PC George) shall not make such statements says the bail order, and now you (Senior Counsel) are arguing that it was not a speech or statement but just a discussion where he was provoked?”
-the judge remarked.
The Kerala High Court was hearing George’s anticipatory bail plea in a new case registered against him for making offensive comments against the Muslim community. This case stemmed from a televised debate on January 5, where George allegedly made derogatory remarks aimed at the Muslim community.
A case was filed under Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, which deals with unlawful assemblies. The complaint was lodged by the Muslim Youth League Municipal Committee.
Earlier, George’s anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the sessions court in Kottayam. The court cited that he had violated the conditions of bail given in a previous case, where he had been specifically instructed not to make provocative statements.
In response, George appealed to the High Court, claiming that his comments were made impulsively, that he had no intention of spreading hatred, and that his immediate apology should be considered as a mitigating factor.
Senior counsel P Vijayabhanu, representing George, argued that George had been provoked during the debate, leading to his remarks. He further insisted that George’s comments were not part of a preplanned speech.
“It was not a statement or a speech, My Lord,”
-he argued, adding,
“A common man has not found any hatred by the comment made by George there’s no mens rea. It might create hate because of the speech that can’t be the stand of the prosecution, it should create such a situation to implicate him (George) under Section 196(1)(a) (promoting enmity on religious, racial, or linguistic grounds) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”
The Senior Counsel also argued that George’s remarks did not qualify under Section 299 (malicious acts to outrage religious feelings) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as there was no deliberate intent behind the statements, and he had immediately apologized for them.
However, government pleader P Narayanan strongly opposed the anticipatory bail plea, arguing that George had continuously violated previous court orders.
“There is no dispute that he has been violating the court’s directions. He cannot claim any privilege due to his age because he has scant regard for the court’s authority,”
-the government pleader contended.
The prosecution read out George’s controversial statements against the Muslim community and insisted that they were deliberate and not merely an impulsive reaction to provocation.
“Reading the statements, it is evident this is the type of speech he is making. How can this be a provocation?”
-the government pleader submitted.
Advocate S Rajeev, representing Muhammed Shihab, the complainant in the case, also opposed the anticipatory bail plea and supported the prosecution’s stance.
The Court continued questioning George about his actions.
“You are flouting the court’s directions. I am concerned only about that. Not just the High Court, but even the magistrate’s court has given orders. Can I ignore this? My concern is when the High Court says something and you are repeatedly violating that. What do you say about that?”
-the judge asked.
The judge also reminded George of his position as a seasoned politician and the responsibility that comes with it, suggesting that caste-based politics should be stopped.
“He is a man who has been an MLA for so many years, a seasoned politician. Can I ignore this conduct? I can only ask him to surrender,”
-the judge stated.
Before concluding the hearing, Justice Kunhikrishnan gave the option of two possible courses of action.
“I can pass orders in two ways, Senior Counsel. One, without going into the merits, I can pass an order that you (George) surrender, and that same day bail could be considered by the Magistrate, or, I can pass a detailed order rejecting the bail,”
-he said.
The Senior Counsel agreed to post the matter for further hearing on February 19 and requested that the court extend interim protection until then.
The Court granted the request and agreed to extend the interim protection.
Senior counsel P Vijayabhanu, along with advocates Sruthy N Bhat, PM Rafiq, Ajeesh K Sasi, M Revikrishnan, Rahul Sunil, Sruthy KK, Sohail Ahammed Harris PP, Nanditha S, Aaron Zacharias Benny, and K Aravind Menon, represented PC George.
Government Pleader P Narayanan appeared for the State.
Advocate S Rajeev appeared for the complainant.
CASE TITLE:
PC George v. State of Kerala.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
