Kerala High Court quashed a criminal case against a lawyer who placed sunglasses and a wreath on Gandhi’s statue. The court ruled the act was immoral but not illegal under existing laws.
Kochi: On August 5, the Kerala High Court recently gave relief to a 23-year-old lawyer named Adeen Nazar, who was facing criminal charges for allegedly disrespecting a statue of Mahatma Gandhi by putting sunglasses and a Christmas wreath on it and saying “Gandhi is long dead.”
Justice VG Arun, who heard the matter, made it very clear that although the act was morally unacceptable and in poor taste, it was not punishable under any existing criminal law in India.
The judge stated,
“Here, it is essential to note that all immoral acts are not illegal acts. Illegal acts are behaviour or actions explicitly prohibited by law, enforceable by the State, and subject to legal penalties like fines or imprisonment.”
He further clarified that there is no law in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which criminalises disrespect or defilement of statues of national leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi.
The Court added that criminal liability cannot arise just because an act is offensive or causes outrage unless the act is specifically mentioned as a crime in law.
Referring to a basic principle of criminal law, the judge highlighted,
“The principle ‘Nullum crimen sine lege’ meaning, ‘no crime without law’, which is fundamental to criminal law, assumes relevance in this context. The principle emphasises that a person cannot be convicted of a crime, unless his act is defined as a crime by law, when it is committed.”
This case goes back to December 21, 2023, when Adeen Nazar, then a law student at Bharata Mata School of Legal Studies, allegedly placed sunglasses and a Christmas wreath on the statue of Mahatma Gandhi on the college campus and remarked “Gandhi is long dead.”
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Rejects ISIS Convict’s Plea, Emphasizes Stern Anti-Terrorism Measures
A video of the incident was shared in a student WhatsApp group, which quickly spread and led to widespread outrage.
As a result, the college suspended him for five days and also ordered him to pay Rs 5,000 to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority as disciplinary action.
Additionally, a criminal case was filed at the Edathala Police Station under Sections 153 (provocation with intent to cause riot) and 426 (punishment for mischief) of the IPC.
After facing disciplinary action and police proceedings, Nazar approached the Kerala High Court to request that the criminal case against him be quashed.
The State, represented by Senior Public Prosecutor MC Ashi, argued that the petitioner’s intention behind such conduct could only be properly evaluated in a full trial. Another lawyer, appearing for a third party, pointed out that Nazar’s act had disturbed the peace among students and caused unrest on the campus.
However, Nazar’s lawyers, Advocates S Rajeev, VV Vinay, MS Aneer, Dipa V, Sarath KP, Anilkumar CR, and KS Kiran Krishnan, acknowledged that while the act may have been inappropriate, it did not qualify as a criminal offence since no specific law criminalises such behaviour.
The Court agreed with this argument and noted that although a private member’s bill had once been introduced in Parliament to make such acts punishable, it had not been passed into law.
The Court examined the charges and clarified that Section 426 IPC (mischief) could not be applied because the basic requirement of ‘mischief’ under Section 425 IPC — which involves causing destruction, damage, or loss of property — was not fulfilled in this case.
Similarly, Section 153 IPC, which deals with provocation with intent to cause riots, was also not applicable since there was no evidence that the petitioner’s act was meant to incite violence or unrest.
Justice VG Arun concluded that criminal courts cannot punish someone just because the act is immoral or causes public outrage, especially in the absence of any law making such behaviour a crime.
He said,
“The principle ‘Nullum crimen sine lege’ meaning, ‘no crime without law’, which is fundamental to criminal law, assumes relevance in this context. The principle emphasises that a person cannot be convicted of a crime, unless his act is defined as a crime by law, when it is committed.”
Also Read: Justice BR Gavai Recommended as Next Chief Justice of India, Will Take Oath on May 14
The judge summarised the situation by stating that
“public outrage or moral disapproval alone could not justify prosecution” and made it clear that “in the absence of a specific law making such conduct a punishable offence, the prosecution could not be sustained.”
Based on these observations, the Kerala High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Advocate Adeen Nazar.
Senior public prosecutor MC Ashi appeared for the State, and Advocates Hashim KM, Jithin Alexander Sunny, Mohammed Ashraf and Aasif Muhammed PM represented the third respondent, Al Ameen.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Gandhi Statue
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
