[Breaking] BJP, UDF leaders move Kerala High Court challenging Section 118A of Kerala Police Act

Kerala BJP President K Surendran and United Democratic Front (UDF) politicians Shibu Baby John, NK Premachandran and AA Azeez have moved the Kerala High Court challenging the Kerala Police (Amendment) Ordinance promulgated by Kerala government criminalising certain classes of communication and publications..Kerala Governor, Arif Mohammad Khan had on Saturday signed off on a controversial ordinance introduced by the Left government in the State which amends the Kerala Police Act by introducing Section 118A to criminalise certain classes of communication and publications..This new provision makes any expression, publication or dissemination of threatening, abusive, defamatory or humiliating content made through any mode of communication punishable if the person does it knowing it to be false and damaging to reputation or mind of another person. A person, if convicted for the offence, can be punished with imprisonment of upto 3 years or fine of Rs. 10,000 or both. The provisions reads as follows:.Punishment for making, expressing, publishing or disseminating any matter which is threatening, abusive, humiliating or defamatory.─ Whoever makes, expresses, publishes or disseminates through any kind of mode of communication, any matter or subject for threatening, abusing, humiliating or defaming a person or class of persons, knowing it to be false and that causes injury to the mind, reputation or property of such person or class of persons or any other person in whom they have interest shall on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both..BJP State president, K Surendran, in his petition has submitted that newly inserted provision is beyond the scope of the Kerala Police Act itself.The petition, filed through advocates P Sreekumar, Aswin Kumar MJ, Helan PA, Arun Roy, Shahir Showkath Ali and Muhammed Suhairof Attorneys' Alliance, contends that the objective of the Act is to regulate the working of the State's Police Force, the power to do so being conferred by the Entry 2, List 2 of the Constitution (the State Government's power to legislate on matters concerning the Police).The newly-inserted provision being essentially a 'private offence' cannot be penalised under a legislation that governs the establishment, regulation, powers and duties of the State Police Force, it has been submitted. Private offences similar to the one penalised by Section 118A are adequately protected by the Indian Penal Code, the petition additionally states..The ordinance has additionally been assailed for curtailing freedom of speech and expression, contending that it is similar to a provision that was previously struck down by the Supreme Court - Section 66-A of the Information Act, 2000. The plea also draws similarity between the other Section that was struck down in the very same judgment, Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act. Section 118(d) penalised causing annoyance through mail or telephonic communications.Stating that the said provisions were struck down for ambiguity and vagueness, the petitioner argues that the present provision of law suffers from a similar disability..Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 is unconstitutional for being vague and struck down [Read Judgment].The second petition has been filed by Shibu Baby John, NK Premachandran and AA Azeez, who are leaders of Revolutionary Socialist Party, which is a constituent of UDF. Premachandran is also the current Member of Parliament from the Kollam constituency in Kerala. .It is their argument that Section 118A suffers from inherent and incurable vagueness. .The petition has been filed through advocates Santhosh Mathew, Arun Thomas, Jennis Stephen, Vijay V Paul, Karthika Maria, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Divya Sara George, Jaisy Elza Joe, Abi Benny Areeckal, Leah Rachel Ninan & Nanda Sanal of Ninan and Mathew Advocates.."..Section 118A suffers from inherent and incurable vagueness..".The petitioner challenges the provision as being vague and ambiguous, and open to the subjective interpretation of individuals. Because of this "even diligent and conscientious citizens cannot know with certainty as to whether their acts of expressions could run afoul of Section 118A" and this could lead to a chilling effect on free speech, the plea asserts..The petitioner contends that the new provision resurrects the same approach to regulating speech that was declared unconstitutional in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India..Both the pleas take specific issue with the fact that the offence in Section 118A is cognizable, that is, allowing arrests of alleged offenders without a police-issued warrant..Ever since the Kerala Cabinet announced its intention to insert Section 118A into the Police Act, it has been at the receiving end of political and popular outcry. .Kerala Governor signs off on ordinance amending Kerala Police Act to combat defamation, communication of abusive material .Though the cabinet decision announcing the new provision had initially proposed a punishment with imprisonment up to 5 years, the punishment was later modified to a combination of imprisonment upto 3 years or a fine upto Rs 10,000 or both.