Kerala High Court Quashes Case Over Facebook Post Criticising CM Relief Fund; Says Freedom Of Speech Includes Right To Criticise Government
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun quashed the criminal proceedings against a petitioner accused of making a Facebook post critical of the Chief Minister’s relief fund initiative. The Court held that the comment, which questioned the handling of public contributions, did not amount to spreading false information or causing public alarm under Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC or Sections 118(b), 118(c), and 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. Observing that freedom of speech includes the right to criticize government policies, the Court found no ingredients of incitement or disruption of essential services and concluded that continuation of prosecution would constitute an abuse of the judicial process.
The case arose from a criminal proceeding initiated by the Ernakulam Central Police Station regarding a Facebook comment posted by the petitioner on 11 August 2019. The comment criticised the collection of public contributions for a government relief fund, alleging possible misuse of the funds. Based on this post, a suo motu crime was registered, alleging offences under Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 118(b), 118(c), and 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
The petitioner, accused in the case, contended that the Facebook post represented an exercise of the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression. It was argued that criticism of government policies does not constitute a criminal act and that the statements did not threaten public order, sovereignty, or morality. The petitioner relied on judicial precedents affirming the constitutional protection of speech that does not incite violence or disorder.
The prosecution maintained that the post was made when the government was seeking public contributions for relief measures and that such a statement could discourage public participation and disrupt the administration’s efforts. It was further contended that the alleged act amounted to spreading misinformation affecting an essential service, thereby attracting provisions of the Kerala Police Act. Evidence consisted primarily of the petitioner’s Facebook post reproduced in translation within the case record
Justice V.G. Arun observed that “Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen by our great Constitution.” The Court recorded 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.” Referring to the constitutional protection of free speech, the Court stated that “as held by the Apex Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2015) 5 SCC 1], when it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value and is of paramount significance under a democratic constitution which envisages changes in the composition of legislatures and Governments.”
The Court further observed that “free flow of opinions and ideas is essential to sustain the collective life of the citizenry.” It added that “fear of setback to Government’s initiatives, due to expression of opinion or dissent by a citizen, cannot result in Article 19(2), restricting the freedom of speech and expression, being brought into play.” The Bench clarified that “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.”
Examining the alleged offences, the Court stated that “in order to attract the offence under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC, the accused must have made published or circulated any statement, rumour or report with intent to cause fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public, whereby a person is induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility.” It found that “by no stretch of imagination can the Facebook comment posted by the petitioner be held as one intended to cause fear or alarm to the public, to such an extent as to induce any person to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility.”
On the applicability of Section 118(c) of the Kerala Police Act, the Court recorded that “the prosecution has no case that, by his act, the petitioner had caused any damage to an essential service.” Similarly, it held that “Section 120(o) will not be attracted unless the accused had made a nuisance of himself by repeated or undesirable call, letters, messages etc. Therefore, the solitary comment by the petitioner is not sufficient to constitute the offence.”
With respect to Section 118(b), the Court observed that “when the expression ‘essential service’ is considered ejusdem generis with the other expressions, the call for voluntary contribution made by the Government cannot be understood as essential service falling within the ambit of Section 118(b).” The Court concluded that “being a penal provision, Section 118(b) has to be interpreted strictly and hence, essential services can only be those mentioned in Section 82 of the Kerala Police Act viz., essential services rendered by police, fire brigade and persons or institutions bound to act as per the directions of the Government or District Magistrate.”
Finally, the Court stated that “For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in Crime No.1698 of 2019 of Ernakulam Central Police Station now pending as C.C.No.210 of 2022 on the files of the JFMC-II, Ernakulam, as against the petitioner, are quashed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Shri. Suvin R. Menon, Smt. Parshathy S.R., Shri. Achuth Krishnan R., and Smt. Cristy Therasa Suresh, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Sri. Vipin Narayanan, Public Prosecutor.
Case Title: Manu S. v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:75566
Case No.: Crl.M.C. No. 7737 of 2025
Bench: Justice V.G. Arun
