The Kerala High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings initiated in 2018 against now-Goa Governor PS Sreedharan Pillai for remarks criticising the Supreme Court's Sabarimala judgment [PS Sreedharana Pillai v. State of Kerala & Anr.].

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan opined that on the whole, Pillai's speech - which criticised the Supreme Court's ruling that women of all ages must be allowed to enter the temple - did not warrant prosecution.

"The Court has to assess the speech as a whole, rather than taking fragmented parts of it. 'The art of public speaking is the art of forgetting yourself in the presence of others' is one of the famous quoting about speeches. Nowadays there is a trend to sensationalise speeches by taking isolated sentences in it, which is to be deprecated ... Citizens may disagree with the views expressed by (Pillai). However, disagreement with the views presented in a speech is not a ground for initiating prosecution under Section 505(1)(b) IPC", the Court said in its November 8 judgment.

The Court also noted that Pillai, who was the State President of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) when he made the remarks, had echoed the sentiments of his party.

"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", the Court added in its judgment.

Entry to the famous Sabarimala temple is traditionally barred to women between the ages of 10 and 50 years. This is generally known to be a means of curtailing the entry of women and girls of menstruating ages.

In 2018, the Supreme Court held that women of all ages ought to be allowed to enter the temple. Review petitions challenging the verdict is currently pending before a larger Bench.

However, even before the review petitions were filed, criticism of the judgment came from all directions, including from Pillai.

Speaking at a meeting of the Yuva Morcha Samsthana Samithi (the youth wing of the BJP) Pillai said that if the thanthri of the temple closes the nada to women, it would not amount to contempt of court. He added that the Sabarimaa thanthri had contacted him to get his thoughts on the matter.

An FIR was subsequently registered against Pillai alleging that his statement, which was broadcast by the media, induced Ayyappa bhakths (Ayyappa devotees) to commit criminal offences and Pillai was charged under Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

This provision penalises publishing and circulating statements that are intended or likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public, as it may induce any person to commit an offence against the State or against public tranquility. Such actions can be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Pillai approached the High Court to quash the case against him contending that even if all the allegations are true, the offence alleged would not stand.

The Court concurred with Pillai's arguments.

First, the Court noted that the speech was given at a private event and that although the media telecast the speech, the police had no case that Pillai had invited the press to the event.

The Court, therefore, concluded that it can't be said that Pillai's statements were likely to cause fear or alarm to the "public."

"The participants of such meetings may be a 'section of the public', but they will not come within the meaning 'section of the public' used in the context of Section 505(1)(b) IPC," the Court explained.

On going through the contents of the speech, the Court noted that although Pillai said that every effort must be made to prevent women between 10-50 years from going to Sabarimala, he also said that the issue should not be treated as a war.

The Court also noted that Pillai was a lawyer which may explain why the Thanthri contacted him to ask if closing the nada would be contempt of court.

"In the speech, he also stated that all religions are in support of the BJP's stance. He further stated that he is going to meet with the Christian priests and the Muslim community and will fight to protect the beliefs of Sabarimala with the support of all. Therefore, there are statements in the speech which would show that the attempt is to unite all communities to protect the interests of Hindus," the Court added.

It also observed that criticism of judgments is not barred by law. Moreover, since Pillai is currently serving as the Governor of Goa, he enjoys immunity from prosecution as granted by Article 361 of the Constitution of India, the Court noted.

For these reasons, the Court deemed it appropriate to allow Pillai's petition and quash the case against him.

Pillai was represented by Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai and advocates Sujesh Menon VB, and TK Sandeep.

Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj NR appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]