The Kerala High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of BJP leader and former MLA P.C. George, who faced charges for making inflammatory remarks against the Muslim community during a televised debate. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan delivered the verdict, stressing the severity of communal hate speech and George’s history of disregarding judicial orders.
Case Background
The controversy arose from a live debate on Janam TV on January 5, 2025, where George allegedly asserted:
“All Muslims in India are terrorists and communalists... Muslims are looters plundering the country’s wealth. All Indian Muslims should go to Pakistan.”
Following a complaint by activist Muhammed Shihab, the Erattupettah Police registered Crime No. 49/2025 under Sections 196(1)(a) (promoting enmity between groups) and 299 (outraging religious feelings) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, which penalizes public nuisance.
Senior Counsel P. Vijayabhanu, representing George, contended that the remarks were unintended, made in the heat of a debate after provocation by a co-panelist. He emphasized George’s immediate public apology via Facebook as evidence of remorse. The defense cited the Supreme Court’s Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), arguing against custodial interrogation for offenses with penalties under seven years.
The State and complainant highlighted George’s repeated disregard for judicial directives. Despite a 2022 bail order mandating restraint from provocative speeches, George continued making inflammatory statements, including in Crime No. 677/2022 (Thiruvananthapuram) and Crime No. 487/2022 (Palarivattom). The prosecution stressed that his remarks endangered India’s secular ethos under Articles 25–28 of the Constitution.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Grants Interim Protection to Former MLA PC George in Hate Speech Case
Justice Kunhikrishnan rejected the bail plea, underscoring George’s political stature and obligations:
“A leader with 30 years as an MLA cannot blame provocation. If he is so easily provoked, he is unfit to lead.”
On February 17, the High Court had expressed dismay over him repeatedly flouting the orders of the Magistrate Court as well as that of the High Court. It had orally observed,
"When the High Court is making orders, you are violating it and coming again….What is the guarantee that you will not repeat it tomorrow. The only thing I can say that is you should surrender…"
