Criticism of Political Leaders by Sharing Facebook Posts, Even if Unsavory, Is Not Illegal: Kerala High Court

Post By 24law
March 2, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling reinforcing the right to free speech, the Kerala High Court has held that sharing Facebook posts critical of political leaders, even if unsavory, does not constitute an illegal act per se. Justice S. Manu, while quashing criminal proceedings against the petitioner, Arun G. Nair, reaffirmed that mere criticism of political figures does not attract penal provisions unless it incites violence or public disorder. The Court observed: "The mere act of sharing Facebook posts simply criticizing someone cannot be held as per se illegal. Even if the target of criticism is a dignitary or a political leader and the criticism is unsavory the act cannot be termed as ex-facie illegal."

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Arun G. Nair, had been booked under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code (provocation with intent to cause riot) and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act (causing nuisance through communication). The complaint was lodged by the President and Secretary of the DYFI Block Committee, alleging that the petitioner, an employee of the Travancore Devaswom Board, had shared Facebook posts depicting the Chief Minister of Kerala, the Devaswom Minister, and the District Police Chief in a derogatory manner, including images alongside animals. While the original complaint sought action against the petitioner for alleged violations of Service Rules, the police FIR went further, accusing him of defamation and incitement to riot. The petitioner contended that his case was politically motivated and an abuse of legal process. He further pointed out the contradictions between the complaint and the FIR, arguing that merely sharing a post, without being its author, does not constitute an illegal act under Section 153 IPC.

Court’s Analysis and Observations

The High Court examined whether the alleged acts met the essential ingredients of the offenses charged. On the application of Section 153 IPC, the Court observed: "It is well settled with respect to the offence under Section 153 of IPC that if the alleged act is not illegal; however wanton, however undesirable, however deplorable the act may have been, there could be no offence committed under Section 153. Therefore, the offence under Section 153 of IPC would lie against the petitioner only if the act of sharing the Facebook posts was an illegal act." The Court further highlighted that there was no assertion in the final report that any specific group or individual was provoked by the petitioner’s posts to commit rioting. It stressed the importance of time, space, and proximity in determining provocation under Section 153 IPC.

Regarding Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, the Court found no material that the petitioner had caused any nuisance to another individual through his actions. The Court noted: "Neither in the complaint nor in the FIR or even in the final report is there any specific assertion that the petitioner caused any nuisance of himself to the complainants or any other person."

Freedom of Speech and Expression

The judgment also reaffirmed the fundamental right to free speech, citing Supreme Court precedents, including Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which had struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional. The Kerala High Court reiterated: "The freedom of speech and expression being guaranteed under the Constitution cannot be denied and police action and prosecution against any dissent can be justified and upheld only if the same are legally sustainable."

Verdict

Holding that the criminal proceedings were unsustainable, the Court quashed the case against Arun G. Nair, emphasizing: "When the offences alleged are found unsustainable in the eye of law on a scrutiny of the factual matrix, the prosecution proceedings cannot be permitted to go on as the same would amount to abuse of the process of law."