Kerala HC Quashes Case Against Goa Governor Sreedharan Pillai Over Remarks On Women's Entry At Sabarimala, Says Speech Wasn't Made In Public

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan quashed the case against Sreedharan Pillai on finding that he was inaugurating a meeting of the BJP's Youth Wing, Yuva Morcha Samsthana Samithi, and that the event was only accessible to a private or exclusive group of people and not the general public. 

The Court further observed that Sreedharan Pillai, in his speech stated that the fight against entry of women must not escalate to a war and that he was only giving his personal opinion. 

The Court further observed that Sreedharan Pillai, as the Governor of Goa, is immune from criminal proceedings under Article 361 of the Constitution.

“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. Article 361 (2) 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. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution as long as he remains the Governor of Goa.”

Background Facts

Sreedharan Pillai allegedly made these statements at the Bharathiya Yuva Morcha State Council Closure Meeting on November 04, 2018. It was stated that the denial of entry of women at Sabarimala Temple would not amount to Contempt of Court and that everyone must support the Thantri.

Crime was registered against him at Kasaba Police Station in Kozhikode under Section 505 (1)(b) for allegedly making statements causing fear or alarm to the public or to induce persons to commit offence against the State or public tranquillity.

The Counsel for Petitioner contended that FIR was registered based on a portion of the speech and an offence under Section 505 (1)(b) cannot be attracted when the speech is considered in its entirety. It was stated that Sreedharan Pillai who was also a practicing at that time was making a fair criticism of the Apex Court judgment in Young Indian Lawyers Association case.

On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor argued that the statements made in the speech was alarming to the public and could induce persons to commit offences against the State or public tranquillity.

Observations

On analysing the provision, the Court stated that an offence under Section 505 (1)(b) could be made out if it was proved that statements were made, published, circulated with intent to cause 'fear or alarm' to the 'public or to a section of the public' to induce them to commit offences against the State or public tranquillity.

The Court found that the speech made in a hotel at an event of BJP was only accessible to the Youth Wing of BJP and not to public as a whole to cause fear or alarm amongst them.

“If the meeting had been held in a public place accessible to all, and the petitioner had made a speech that met the other ingredients of Section 505(1)(b), the offence may attract. But, here is a case where the petitioner was only making a speech in a conference hall and that also in a meeting of the youth wing of BJP. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner made a speech which is likely to cause fear or alarm to the “public”.”

The Court further stated that there was no case that Sreedharan Pillai invited media to cover the event or to circulate it.

The Court observed that the speech made by Sreedharan Pillai stated that effort must be made to prevent entry of women aged between 10 to 50 to the Sabarimala Temple. The Court noted that he also stated that their attempt to fight should not escalate to a situation of war which would take lives of people.The Court noted that he also invited people of all the communities to protect the interests of Hindus.

“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. Therefore it cannot be said that the speech made by the petitioner, that also in a conference hall, to the youth wing of BJP will cause fear or alarm to the public or to a section of the public.”

Additionally, the Court stated that the speech must be considered in its entirety and not parts of the speech.

Further, the Court noted that the complaint also does not mention any instances of persons being induced to commit offences against the State or Public Tranquillity because of the speech.

The Court also stated that Sreedharan Pillai and his party can express fair criticism of the Apex Court judgment and that would not amount to contempt. Relying upon Apex Court judgment in Hari Singh Nagra and Others v. Kapil Sibal and Others (2010), the Court stated thus,

“The Apex Court observed that there is no manner of doubt 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.”

As such, the Court quashed the FIR and all further proceedings against Sreedharan Pillai.

Counsel for Petitioners: Senior B Advocate Raman, Sujesh Menon V B, T K Sandeep

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj N R

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 7573 OF 2018

Case Title: P.S.Sreedharan Pillai v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 737