Can a journalist who says she was threatened over a TV debate get help on demand? The Kerala High Court has directed the Ernakulam South police to provide police protection for journalist Aparna Kurup and her residence, after she alleged death threats and cyber attacks following a discussion she anchored.
Kochi: Whenever she alerts the police to a threat, the station house officer must now step in to protect her and her home, the Kerala High Court directed on Friday (November 6) in a plea by Big TV senior journalist Aparna Kurup, who alleged that she received death threats and faced cyber attacks after anchoring a channel discussion on a public statement on women’s rights made by Islamic scholar Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliyar [Aparna Kurup v. State of Kerala and Others].
Justice Murali Purushothaman disposed of the writ petition after the State assured the Court that the Station House Officer of Ernakulam South Police Station would provide adequate protection.
A protection order that works on request
“In the circumstances it will be open to the petitioner to alert the 4th respondent [SHO] in case of any threat or threat or intimidation from any person, and in such event, the 4th respondent shall afford necessary protection to the petitioner and her residence and, take all the necessary steps to avoid any law and order situation.”
With that, the writ petition was disposed of, the SHO being directed to give adequate protection to the lives of the petitioner and her son and to avoid any law and order situation.
What the State told the Court
Under an earlier interim order, the SHO of Ernakulam South Police Station was already protecting the petitioner, the Court was told. The Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the SHO was willing to provide adequate protection to her life and her apartment whenever required, and that police surveillance was in place near her residence.
The journalist’s petition
Aparna Kurup is a Senior Coordinating Editor with Big TV. According to her petition, she anchored the channel’s programme ‘Big Dialogue’ on Kanthapuram’s statement on women’s rights. She said the discussion was purely journalistic and an exercise of press freedom under Article 19(1)(a), yet she faced severe cyber attacks.
The petition states that she lodged a criminal complaint, but the threats did not stop and instead grew worse. After approaching the SHO with a representation, she moved the High Court seeking police protection for herself, her minor son and their property, a threat assessment by the City Police Commissioner, and an effective investigation into the case registered on her complaint. These are her allegations, and the persons behind the alleged threats have not been identified in the proceedings.
Why the order matters
Writ courts routinely direct police protection where a citizen shows a credible threat to life, a duty that flows from Article 21. For journalists, the issue also touches press freedom under Article 19(1)(a): online abuse and threats over a broadcast can chill debate on public questions if the State does not respond.
The order turns the State’s assurance into a binding, on-demand obligation. The petitioner can alert the local SHO whenever a threat arises, and the officer must then act to protect her and her home. The Court did not rule on the merits of the criminal complaint, which remains under investigation.
Case Title: Aparna Kurup v. State of Kerala and Others [WP(C) No. 31281 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Murali Purushothaman, Kerala High Court
Date of Order: November 6, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Mansoor B.H. and Sakeena Beegum for the petitioner; Government Pleader for the State
