Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Monday, November 25, 2024

Kerala Govt Compelled To Repeal Section 118A Of Kerala Police Act

Posted in: Criminal Law
Thu, Dec 3, 20, 12:00, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
4 out of 5 with 1 ratings
comments: 20 - hits: 4159
first ordinance, the Governor had held on to it without signing the ordinance for 30 days while the repeal ordinance was signed in a day. The first ordinance was promulgated without any discussion in any public forum or in the LDF. Kerala Chief Minister

It is most heartening to see that the Governor of Kerala – Arif Mohammad Khan has finally signed on November 25, 2020 a repeal ordinance nullifying the earlier notorious ordinance brought by the Kerala State Government that had introduced draconian Section 118A in the Kerala Police Act, 2011. This ordinance provided for jail term for any communication or publication, including social media or cyber post, that is deemed threatening, abusive, humiliating or defamatory.

The amendment (Section 118A) had the potential to muzzle all dissenting voices through all mediums. Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act provided for imprisonment of up to three years for any person convicted of causing annoyance to any person in an indecent manner by statements or verbal comments or telephone calls or call of any type or by chasing or sending messages or mail by any means.

In this context, it may be recalled that on March 24, 2015 in the famous judgment titled Shreya Singhal vs Union of India in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 of 2012 along with others decided by a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice RF Nariman and Justice J Chelameswar, the Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down as it had a similar provision of the Kerala Police Act for being violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression and for its vagueness.

The Apex Court in this case had said that what it has said about Section 66A would directly apply to the provision as causing annoyance in an indecent manner suffers from the same type of vagueness and overbreadth... It was also rightly held that, What may be offensive to one person may not be offensive to another.

It would be useful to note that Section 66A criminalized sending of a communication – via computer or a communication device – which could be said to be grossly offensive, has menacing character or false information intended at causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or will or any electronic mail or email messages intended at causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the recipient. The old Kerala law – Section 118(D) of Kerala Police Act too suffered from the same problems as Section 66A of the IT Act and was struck down by the Apex Court!

Needless to say, in a brief statement days after the ordinance was issued, the Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan said that it was the government's duty to respect the serious concern voiced by various quarters on it. Earlier the CM had brushed aside the criticism and had said that:
The new amendment will in no way be used against or impartial journalism. Apprehensions to the contrary are unfounded. Such a law was necessary because cyber attacks were increasing alarmingly.

Even allies including the CPI(M)'s junior partner, the Communist Party of India, have expressed reservations on the move. Vijayan who conceded that even Left supporters had expressed serious reservations over the amendment said that:
We have been forced to bring such an amendment in view of growing cyber attacks against women and children. After concerns expressed by various quarters, we have decided not to go ahead with it. Further action will be taken after a detailed debate in the assembly.

To be sure, Kerala CM Vijayan's office sent a directive to the state director general of police not to register cases under the new law. Legal experts said that since it had already become law, the Governor will have to promulgate another ordinance or order its withdrawal on the advice of the Cabinet. Supreme Court lawyer MR Abhilash said that, Unless it is withdrawn, it will remain a law. The governor will have to promulgate another order to nullify it. The government is likely to approach the Governor in a day or two with a request to that effect said a senior government official who requested anonymity.

What's more, the Governor signed after the Kerala State Government decided to withdraw the amendment and the Cabinet recommended that the Governor promulgate a repeal ordinance and it is the first time this has happened in the state. The amendment being nullified had been promulgated on November 21. In the case of the first ordinance, the Governor had held to it without signing the ordinance for 30 days but on the contrary, the repeal ordinance was signed in a day. This itself shows that the Governor too was not happy with this new Ordinance and that is why he held to it for 30 days and when the time came for repealing it, he took just a day!

Truth be told, CPI(M) General Secretary Sitaram had also expressed his reservations over the ordinance and made it clear that it wouldn't be implemented in the form in which it had been drafted. Party insiders told the media that the central leadership too was not happy and had sought major changes to the ordinance, but the state unit thought it proper not to implement it. So the relentless pressure on the Kerala State Government was clearly ostensible!

As is quite ostensible, this ordinance that mandates a jail term for any social media or cyber post deemed offensive or threatening had triggered a fierce political firestorm with Opposition parties slamming the CPI-led ruling LDF for the harsh and draconian move to gag the media. Leader of Opposition in the Assembly – Ramesh Chennithala had accused the government of trying to silence those who criticize them. Ramesh accused the state government of trying to hoodwink the people and said that, Once an ordinance is signed by the Governor, it becomes law. The decision that the ordinance will not be implemented is meant to hoodwink the people.

There is no Constitutional validity for the amended Act. The government should withdraw the amended Act. Congress MP from Thiruvananthapuram Shashi Tharoor also criticized the ordinance saying that, It was loosely drafted and it could be used against political opponents. BJP Kerala State President K Surendran said that the amendment was aimed at silencing all political protest.

Of course, it is good to see that the Kerala Police, however, has struck a cautious note on this and maintained that before taking any further action under the amendment, a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) will be prepared in consultation with legal experts to ensure that the ordinance is not misused in any manner.

It may be recalled that earlier on November 21, the Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan had approved the Kerala Police (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 that incorporates a new Section 118A in the Kerala Police Act. By this any person who creates or sends any information that is offensive or is intended to offend or threaten another person, through any means of communication, is liable to face imprisonment of three years or a fine of Rs 10,000 or both.

It cannot be ignored or lightly dismissed that Section 66A of the IT Act and this new Kerala ordinance are couched in a typical same language. This alone explains why there was so much of hullaballoo and brouhaha over it! What drew flak is that this new Kerala ordinance covers any means of offensive communication or criticism on any platform and not just social media. Any person who creates or sends out any information to offend or threaten another person is liable to face imprisonment of three years or a fine of Rs 10,000 or both. It also empowered police officers to initiate a case on their own and arrest the accused!

Not just this, police could also slap criminal charges on citizens by interpreting any kind of communication through any medium as defamatory. How can this be ever justified? It must be mentioned here that the knee-jerk reaction of the Kerala's State Government came in the wake of many sensational cases, including a gold smuggling racket in which powerful people were involved! Also, after the arrest of former CPI(M) Secretary's son Bineesh Kodiyeri in connection with a narcotics seizure case, many articles have appeared online against senior leaders and ministers.

No doubt, political commentator and senior journalist John Mary has a valid point when he points out on a sound footing that, The government's move to rein in criticism has backfired. The belated move to freeze the ordinance following the groundswell of resentment from across the social spectrum does not absolve the ruling party of its double standard on freedom of speech. Damage has already been done.

It is worth pointing out that in the case of the first ordinance, the Governor had held on to it without signing the ordinance for 30 days while the repeal ordinance was signed in a day. The first ordinance was promulgated without any discussion in any public forum or in the LDF. Kerala Chief Minister was thus compelled to clarify that any further amendment to the Act would be undertaken only after elaborate discussion in the State Assembly.

Be it noted, the Kerala State Government had earlier on November 25, 2020 informed a Kerala High Court Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly that it has decided to withdraw the amendment. The Bench that was hearing the petitions challenging the legality of Section 118A, was informed by the additional Advocate General that the ordinance was being withdrawn with effect from November 21. Advocate Santhosh Mathew who represents RSP leaders Shibhu Baby John and two others in the case submitted that the procedure laid out in the Constitution under Article 213 is to be followed for withdrawal of the ordinance.

All said and done, it is good to see that this new repulsive, reprehensible and draconian ordinance has now been finally withdrawn after facing huge flak and criticism from all quarters. Eventually, we thus see that the Kerala State Government after facing a hailstorm of criticism from across the political spectrum was finally compelled to blink, bow and finally withdraw. But this definitely also begs the moot question: Why was the ordinance in the first place issued at all in a progressive state?

Also, did the State police really require sweeping untrammelled power as was sought to be given by this Ordinance which has finally been withdrawn? The answer obviously is in the negative! Also, the Ordinance covered any means of offensive communication or criticism on any social platform and not just on social media.

So, it goes without saying that the Ordinance has been rightly withdrawn and it should never have been tabled at the first place! But as the old saying goes that, It is better to be late than never! All the State Governments must be very careful from now onwards on this score and if they still fail to learn anything from this then they too will end up by having eggs on their faces as we saw in the case of Kerala government!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top