[Speech On Women’s Entry To Sabarimala Temple] ‘Fair And Reasonable Criticism Can Be Encouraged’: Kerala HC Quashes Case Against Goa Governor P.S. Sreedharan Pillai  

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Kerala: The Kerala High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings initiated in 2018 against Goa Governor PS Sreedharan Pillai. The case stemmed from his remarks criticizing the Supreme Court’s 2018 Sabarimala judgment, which allowed women of all ages to enter the temple.

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan ruled that Pillai’s speech, when considered in its entirety, did not warrant prosecution under Section 505(1)(b) IPC. He emphasized that assessing a speech requires context, not isolated sentences.

“There is a trend to sensationalize speeches by taking fragmented parts out of context, which is to be deprecated,” the Court observed. Disagreeing with someone’s speech doesn’t justify prosecution.

At the time of the remarks, Pillai was the State President of the BJP and had expressed his party’s sentiment. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s stance encouraging fair and reasonable criticism of judgments, acknowledging that no one, including judges, is infallible.

BRIEF FACTS

The FIR alleged that Pillai’s statement, made at a BJP youth wing event, could incite Ayyappa devotees to commit offences. However, the Court noted that the speech was at a private gathering, not a public forum, and Pillai had not invited the media. Hence, it could not be deemed likely to incite fear or alarm among the public.

The Court also highlighted Pillai’s conciliatory remarks, stressing unity among communities. It pointed out his background as a lawyer, which explained the temple priest consulting him about contempt implications.

READ ALSO: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud Defends the Sabarimala Verdict, Stating that ‘Untouchability’ Extends Beyond Caste Alone

Lastly, as Governor, Pillai enjoys immunity from prosecution under Article 361 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court quashed the case, concurring with Pillai’s argument that the allegations did not constitute an offence.

Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai and advocates Sujesh Menon VB and TK Sandeep represented Pillai. Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj NR appeared for the State.

Supreme Court’s 2018 Sabarimala Verdict Overview

On September 28, 2018, a five-judge Supreme Court bench ruled in the Sabarimala Temple Entry case, declaring the exclusion of women unconstitutional by a 4:1 majority. The Court found that this practice violated female worshippers’ fundamental right to religious freedom under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.

The bench struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, which permitted the exclusion of women based on custom, deeming it unconstitutional.

Four separate opinions were delivered by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, and Justices RF Nariman, DY Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra. Justices Nariman and Chandrachud concurred with Chief Justice Misra’s view, while Justice Indu Malhotra provided the lone dissenting opinion.

Case Title: PS Sreedharana Pillai v. State of Kerala & Anr

FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE