Should Those Making Statements Against Basic Structure Of Constitution Be Dealt With Lightly? Kerala High Court Asks Registry To Forward Its Order Dismissing BJP Leader's Bail Plea To Law Commission
The Kerala High Court denied anticipatory bail to BJP Leader P.C. George accused in a hate speech case.
Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has directed the Registry to forward its Order to the Law Commission for consideration of whether individuals making statements against the basic structure of the Constitution should be dealt with lightly.
The Court denied anticipatory bail to BJP Leader P.C. George, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), accused under Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 in a hate speech case.
A Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed, “Nowadays, there is a tendency to make statements based on religion, caste etc. These are against the basic structure of our Constitution. These tendencies should be nipped in the bud. If anybody violates the same, can an offender escape from the offence even by paying a fine alone, is a matter to be considered by the Parliament and the Law Commission. For the offences under Sections 196(1) (a) and 299 of the BNS, the maximum punishment that can be imposed is three years or fine or with both. Even for a second offender, there is no higher punishment. Here is a case where the petitioner is continuously making statements which may amount to serious offences. But, a mandatory jail sentence is not prescribed for such offences. This is a serious matter to be looked into by the Law Commission and the Parliament. The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Chairman of the Law Commission of India.”
Senior Advocate P.Vijayabhanu represented the Petitioner, while Senior Government Pleader Shri.Sajju.S. appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The case was registered following a statement made by the Petitioner during a live television debate on Janam TV on January 5, 2025. The investigating officer submitted that the statement, as quoted in the complaint, contained derogatory remarks against the Muslim community, leading to allegations of promoting enmity and creating disharmony.
The Petitioner, apprehending arrest, filed for anticipatory bail, arguing that his remarks were made in the heat of the moment and did not have malicious intent. He contended that he was provoked by co-panelists and had issued a public apology immediately after the incident.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that the Petitioner was also an accused in a case under Section 153A of the IPC which corresponds to Section 196 of the BNS. That was a case registered based on a speech by the Petitioner in 'Ananathapuri Hindhu Maha Sammelanam' held at Thiruvananthapuram.
“The tone and tenor of the petitioner, while making such a statement are also important. It cannot be said that it is a slip of the tongue. I once again record that, this finding is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application, while such a contention is raised by the petitioner. Then the Senior counsel said that he made such a submission, because he was provoked by the co-panelist. I am forced to say that, a politician like the petitioner, who has about 30 years of experience as an MLA can be provoked easily like this, he does not deserve to continue as a political leader,” the Bench noted.
The Court, therefore, held, “The people will closely watch his speech, statements and even behaviour. The politicians should be a role model to the society. After making abusive statements which may result in communal disharmony, the apology given by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner ought to have thought that he was participating in a live coverage discussion on a channel. Lakhs and Lakhs of people are watching the television. All the people need not look into the Facebook post of the petitioner posted on the next day. Therefore, I cannot agree that, simply because the petitioner gave an apology, the offence is wiped off.”
The Bench also stated that custodial interrogation is not the sole criterion for granting bail and that the nature of allegations and the accused’s antecedents must be considered. “The antecedents of the accused and the seriousness of the allegations are also important aspects to be considered by the court. But, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, that itself cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail,” it clarified.
Consequently, the Court held. “If this Court grants bail in these types of cases, that will give a wrong message to the society. The people may think that, even if the bail conditions are violated, they will get anticipatory bail from the court of law. Such a message should not go to the society. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. There is no merit in this bail application.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Bail Application.
Cause Title: P.C. George v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025-KER-14853)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate P.Vijayabhanu; Advocates Sruthy N. Bhat, P.M.Rafiq, Ajeesh K.Sasi, M.Revikrishnan, Rahul Sunil, Sruthy K.K, Sohail Ahammed Harris P.P., Nanditha S., Aaron Zacharias Benny and K.Aravind Menon
Respondents: Senior Government Pleader Shri.Sajju.S.; Special Public Prosecutor P. Narayanan; Advocate S. Rajeev, V.Vinay, M.S.Aneer, Sarath K.P., K.S.Kiran Krishnan, Anilkumar C.R. and Dipa V.