Sreekumar V. v. State of Kerala
(2019) 2 KLJ 832
In the High Court of Kerala
B.A. 2151/2019
Before Justice Alexander Thomas
Decided on April 3, 2019

Relevancy of the case: Anticipatory bail in a case involving abusive and unparliamentary social media posts

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 67)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 292, 294, 509)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 438)
• The Kerala Police Act, 2011 (Section 120(o))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petitioner allegedly made lascivious, abusive postings and obscene messages on the respondent’s Facebook account that insulted her womanhood.
• The postings were also against the complainant’s husband with abusive, unparliamentary, and unprintable words.
• The reason behind the petitioner’s act was their irritation and non-agreement with the views presented by the complainant’s husband on the Sabarimala case judgement.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that humiliating or defamatory words cannot always amount to obscenity. The material cannot be termed as obscene and lascivious unless it is proved that it corrupts minds with lustful or sexual desires in those who are open to immoral influences.
• The petitioner’s counsel contends that due to the above reasons, the acts cannot come under the purview of Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• The respondent’s counsel stated that it is highly necessary to have a comprehensive investigation on the abusive postings, which the petitioner finally deleted.

Opinion of the Bench

• The Court concluded that the investigation and interrogation shall continue.
• They believed that though the words were unparliamentary, unprintable and abusive, they cannot be considered under broad contours of Sections 294 and 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, unless those words are capable of arousing sexual thoughts in the hearers’ minds.
• The court made its decision under the limits of application for pre-arrest bail as provided in Sections 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Decision

• Anticipatory bail granted.

This case summary has been prepared by Shubhangi Gehlot, an undergraduate student at Law Faculty, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2021.