"Not Answerable To Any Court": Kerala HC Quashes Case Against Goa Governor Sreedharan Pillai Over Speech On Entry Of Women In Sabarimala
The Kerala High Court quashed a case against Goa Governor P.S. Sreedharan Pillai over his speech on entry of women in Sabarimala Temple.
The Court was dealing with a Petition filed by the Governor against whom a case was registered, alleging an offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan said, “… the petitioner is now discharging his duty as a Governor of the State of Goa. Article 361 of the Constitution says that the President or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.”
The Bench added that, Article 361(2) of the Constitution says that no criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President, or the Governor of a State, in any Court during his term of office and therefore, the accused is entitled to immunity under Article 361 as long as he remains the Governor of Goa.
Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj N.R. appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
The Petitioner was the President of the Kerala State Unit of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He is currently discharging his duties as the Governor of the State of Goa. While he was serving as the Kerala State President of BJP, he was arraigned as an accused in a case. The said case was registered alleging an offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC.
It was alleged that in a speech delivered by him in 2018 at the “Bharathiya Yuva Morcha State Council Closure Meeting”, he stated that closure of “Sabarimala Nada” by the “Thanthri” in case of the entry by “yuvathi” (adolescent women) will not amount to contempt of Court and that the “Thanthri” is not alone and we all are behind the “Thanthri”. It was further alleged that, this statement which was broadcast through the media induced the Ayyappa Bhakthas to commit criminal offences. Resultantly, an FIR was registered against him.
The High Court in the above regard, observed, “… one of the ingredients to attract Section 505(1)(b) is that the statement made by the accused must be likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to a section of the public and thereby induce a person to commit an offence against the State or public tranquillity. A perusal of the Annexure-I complaint would not show that there is any such instance where a person was induced to commit an offence against the State or public tranquillity because of the speech alone. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that basic ingredients of Section 505(1)(b) IPC are not attracted.”
The Court noted that, freedom of expression, as contemplated by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, is available to the press and to criticize a Judgment fairly is not a crime but a necessary right.
“A fair and reasonable criticism of a judgment, which is a public document or which is a public act of a judge concerned with the administration of justice, could not constitute contempt. The Apex Court also observed that such fair and reasonable criticism must be encouraged because after all, no one, much less judges can claim infallibility”, it said.
The Court, therefore, concluded that even if the entire allegations in the FIR are accepted in toto, no offence under Section 505(1)(b) of IPC is made out against the Petitioner. It added that the continuation of further proceedings is not necessary.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the proceedings.
Cause Title- P.S. Sreedharan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:84861)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai, Advocates Sujesh Menon V.B., and T.K. Sandeep.
Respondents: Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj N.R.
