The Kerala High Court on Thursday set aside criminal proceedings against a 38-year-old man accused of posting an allegedly derogatory Facebook comment about the State’s appeal for contributions to the CMDRF, observing that mere criticism of the government cannot be stretched into a criminal offence. The atmosphere inside Court Hall No. 6 remained calm but attentive, as Justice V.G. Arun read out the decision with an unmistakable firmness in tone.
Background
The case dates back to August 2019, when the Ernakulam Central Police registered a suo motu FIR against the petitioner, Manu S, after he posted a short but sharp comment on his Facebook page. A rough translation, read aloud by the court, said:
"If anyone wants to help, they can do it directly. Pinarayi is agitated for not getting the amount directly and if paid, it will be swindled."
This single comment, prosecutors insisted, was enough to attract charges under Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC (statements causing fear or alarm), and Sections 118(b), 118(c) and 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. The petitioner’s counsel argued that this was "blatant misuse of criminal law to stifle criticism," while the State maintained that the remark undermined the government’s fund-raising efforts during a crisis.
Court's Observations
Justice Arun did not mince words while emphasising the constitutional foundation of the case.
"Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed by our great Constitution," the judge remarked, pausing slightly before continuing to explain how democratic spaces must remain open for dissent.
"The bench observed, ‘Fear of setback to Government’s initiatives, due to expression of opinion or dissent by a citizen, cannot result in Article 19(2) being brought into play,'" noting that free flow of ideas is indispensable in a democracy.
The court then turned to legal ingredients required to constitute the offences charged. Section 505(1)(b), it clarified, applies only when a statement is made with intent to cause fear or alarm that might induce someone to commit an offence. In this instance, the court held that nothing in the petitioner’s single Facebook post came close to that threshold.
Section 118(c) of the Kerala Police Act, which penalises “knowingly or wilfully causing damage to an essential service,” also fell flat. The judge remarked that there was “no case that the petitioner caused any damage to any essential service,” making the charge legally unsustainable.
The bench was equally unconvinced about Section 120(o), which concerns repeated nuisance through calls, letters or messages. Here, the judge gave a faint smile and said, "A solitary Facebook comment cannot constitute repeated nuisance."
Section 118(b), the final provision debated, also failed the legal test. The judge explained, almost like a classroom instructor, that essential services under the Act must be understood in the limited context of Section 82 - services rendered by persons or institutions specifically directed by district authorities.
"The Government’s call for voluntary contributions cannot be stretched into the definition of essential services," he noted.
He also dismissed the prosecution’s attempt to rely on definitions from the Essential Services Maintenance Act, saying those definitions cannot be imported into this context for criminal prosecution.
Court's Decision
With these observations, the judge concluded that none of the offences alleged against the petitioner were legally maintainable.
"For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C is allowed," Justice Arun declared, finally bringing relief to the accused who had been facing trial for more than three years.
The court ordered that the final report and all further proceedings in Crime No. 1698 of 2019, pending as C.C. No. 210 of 2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, be quashed.
The matter ended there, without any additional directions or observations.
Case Title:- Manu S vs State of Kerala & Another
Case Number:- Crl.M.C. No. 7737 of 2025
