Disrespect towards the Constitution, whether through words or actions, is considered an offense. The Kerala High Court has ordered a Crime Branch investigation into Minister Saji Cherian’s comments about the Constitution.
The Kerala High Court has ordered a Crime Branch investigation into a 2022 incident involving Saji Cherian, the former Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture. During a public event in Pathanamthitta, he allegedly made remarks that were disrespectful to the Constitution of India. The petitioner asked the High Court to overturn the final report in a criminal case filed under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, and to dismiss his request for further investigation. He also sought to have the Central Bureau of Investigation take over the case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, in a Single-Judge Bench, noted that the Minister’s comments, such as calling the Constitution “ideal for looting the people,” are not respectful. He questioned whether the context of these remarks showed disrespect to the Constitution. The statement about the Indian Constitution being suitable for looting leaves little room for debate. Advocate M. Baiju Noel represented the petitioner, while SC Sreelal Warriar represented the respondents. The incident dates back to 2022 when Cherian made the controversial remarks, leading to multiple complaints to the police. When no action was taken, the petitioner approached the local Magistrate, resulting in an FIR being filed under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
The party involved, Baiju Noel, argued that the accused’s speech showed complete disrespect for the Constitution of India, violating the Act’s provisions. It was also claimed that the investigating officer lacked evidence to prove that the accused did not intend to disrespect the Constitution. Since the accused is a Minister in the Kerala government, it was argued that the police could not conduct a fair investigation, suggesting that the CBI should take over the case. Shaji, the Director General of Prosecution, stated that the speech merely reflected the public’s struggles and the exploitation of workers, and should not be seen as a deliberate insult.
The Bench emphasized that the High Court has the authority to review criminal cases and that its powers under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as well as Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are only limited by self-imposed rules. Therefore, the argument against the writ petition’s validity was dismissed. Another matter for the Bench was whether to overturn the Order that dismissed the defacto complainant’s request for further investigation. The Bench clarified that a defacto complainant has the right to be notified of a final report and to challenge its acceptance. They referenced the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Another (1985) 2 SCC 537 to stress that the Magistrate must ensure a fair investigation and that the investigating officer’s conclusions are reasonable.
The Court mentioned that Section 2 of the Act makes it a punishable offense to insult the Indian National Flag and the Constitution of India, with penalties including imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both. Before 2003, the Act only punished actions like burning, mutilating, or defacing the National Flag or the Constitution. However, the amendment in 2003 added the phrase “shows disrespect.” The Bench explained that this means disrespect towards the Constitution or any part of it, whether through spoken or written words or actions, can be considered a violation of the law. However, the explanation clarifies that criticism of the Constitution aimed at seeking lawful amendments is not included.
It was also pointed out that the Investigating Officer should not have concluded that no offense occurred without gathering all necessary evidence or waiting for the Forensic Science Laboratory report. In this case, the pen drive and CD with footage were sent for forensic analysis, but the report was not yet available. Therefore, the CCTV footage was not included in the final report, and the Magistrate could not verify the Investigating Officer’s conclusion.
The Bench noted that the pen drive and CD with the footage were sent for forensic analysis, but the report was not yet available. The CCTV footage was not included in the final report, leaving the Magistrate unable to verify the investigating officer’s conclusions. The Bench stated that the final report should be dismissed and a new investigation should take place. It emphasized that since the accused is a State Minister, the investigation by the Station House Officer is inadequate, and a higher authority is needed. Therefore, the State Crime Branch should carry out the further investigation. The Bench approved the Writ Petition, overturned the Magistrate’s order, and ordered the State Crime Branch to investigate the case further.
Cause Title: Adv. M.Baiju Noel v. Additional Chief Secretary (Home & Vigilance), Secretariat [Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:87228]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate M. Baiju Noel (Party-In-Person)
Respondents: SC Sreelal Warriar, Director General Of Prosecution T.A.shaji, Public Prosecutor P.Narayanan, Senior Govt. Pleader Sajju. S.
