The Kerala High Court ruled that criticising the Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund is part of free speech, quashing charges against a man for his Facebook post. Justice VG Arun said mere criticism of the government cannot attract criminal action unless it incites public disorder.
The Kerala High Court has recently quashed the criminal case against a 38-year-old man who was accused of making a Facebook comment critical of the Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF).
Justice VG Arun, while hearing the matter, strongly upheld the citizen’s right to free speech. The Court said that in a democracy, people must be allowed to express their opinions freely, even if those opinions upset the government or a part of society.
The Judge observed that
“in a democracy, citizens must be free to express their opinions, even if those opinions displease the government or a section of society and mere criticism of the government cannot attract penal provisions.”
The Court further made it clear that restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution apply only when a statement becomes so serious that it incites violence, disturbs public order, or threatens the nation’s sovereignty and integrity.
As the Judge explained,
“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.”
In this case, the Court pointed out that the petitioner’s Facebook post did not amount to such incitement. The Judge remarked that
“In the case at hand also, merely because the petitioner’s comment is not be palatable to a section of people, that, by itself, is sufficient to initiate criminal action.”
The incident dates back to August 11, 2019, when the petitioner had written a comment on Facebook regarding donations to the CMDRF during the 2018 Kerala floods.
In his post, he wrote that people wishing to help flood victims should donate directly instead of through the CMDRF, suggesting that the funds could be misused by the Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
The post read,
“If anyone wants to help, they can do it directly. Pinarayi is agitated for not getting the amount directly and if paid, it will be swindled.”
Following this, the Ernakulam Central Police Station registered a case against him under Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly publishing or circulating a statement that could disturb public order or incite offences against the state.
He was also booked under Sections 118(b), 118(c), and 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 — provisions relating to spreading rumours, damaging essential services, and creating public nuisance through messages or emails.
ALSO READ: “Why a Contest b/w Union & State?”: SC on Karnataka Plea for Drought Relief Funds
Aggrieved by the case, the petitioner approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the charges, arguing that every citizen has a right to criticise the government and such criticism cannot be treated as a threat to public order.
His counsel contended that his post was a simple opinion and not an attempt to create unrest.
On the other hand, the public prosecutor argued that the post could harm the government’s relief fund drive and might discourage people from donating. The prosecutor claimed that it was intended to derail the government’s efforts to raise money for flood victims.
However, the Court disagreed with this argument and made a strong observation that fear of criticism cannot be a valid reason for the government to restrict speech.
The judgment stated that
“government’s fear of potential criticism or backlash cannot be a ground to restrict speech.”
The Court also relied on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Shreya Singhal v Union of India, which held that the liberty of thought and expression is the cornerstone of a democratic constitution, and the State cannot suppress dissent under the pretext of maintaining public order.
The Kerala High Court highlighted that
“the right to criticise the policies and actions of the Government and those at the helm of affairs is ingrained in this fundamental right.”
After a detailed examination, the Court concluded that none of the charges applied to the petitioner’s case.
The Judge held that the Facebook post did not cause any panic or disturb public peace as required under Section 505(1)(b) IPC, nor did it cause any harm to government services as mentioned in Section 118(b) of the Kerala Police Act.
The Court further observed that relief activities for flood victims could not be treated as “essential services” under Section 118(c) and added that a single Facebook comment cannot be considered a repeated act of nuisance under Section 120(o) of the Act.
Finding no element of incitement or public disturbance in the petitioner’s Facebook post, the Court finally decided to quash the entire criminal proceedings and the final report against him.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Suvin R Menon, Parshathy SR, Achuth Krishnan R, and Cristy Therasa Suresh, while Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayanan appeared for the State.
The judgment reaffirms that free speech is a protected constitutional right and that citizens cannot be criminally prosecuted simply for expressing criticism of the government.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CM’s Relief Fund
