The Kerala High Court has asked the registry to send its order rejecting the bail request of a BJP leader to the Law Commission. The court is questioning whether people who make statements against the basic structure of the Constitution should be treated leniently.
The Kerala High Court has instructed the Registry to send its Order to the Law Commission to consider if people making statements against the Constitution’s basic structure should face lighter consequences. The Court denied anticipatory bail to BJP Leader P.C. George, a former MLA, who is accused under Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, in a hate speech case. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan noted that there is a growing trend of making statements based on religion and caste, which go against the Constitution’s basic structure. He emphasized that such behavior should be stopped early. The question of whether offenders can escape punishment by just paying a fine should be examined by Parliament and the Law Commission. For the offenses under Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of the BNS, the maximum penalty is three years in prison, a fine, or both, and even repeat offenders face the same maximum punishment. The petitioner has repeatedly made statements that could be serious offenses, yet there is no mandatory jail time for these actions. This issue needs serious attention from the Law Commission and Parliament. The Registry will send 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. The case began after the Petitioner made a statement during a live debate on Janam TV on January 5, 2025. The investigating officer reported that the statement included offensive comments about the Muslim community, which led to claims of inciting hatred and discord. Fearing arrest, the Petitioner sought anticipatory bail, claiming his comments were made impulsively and without harmful intent. He argued that he was provoked by other panelists and apologized publicly right after the incident.
The Court observed that the Petitioner was also involved in another case under Section 153A of the IPC, linked to a speech he gave at the ‘Ananathapuri Hindhu Maha Sammelanam’ in Thiruvananthapuram. “The way the petitioner expressed himself during the statement is significant. It cannot simply be dismissed as a mistake. I emphasize that this finding is solely for the purpose of this bail application, as raised by the petitioner. The Senior counsel argued that he reacted this way due to provocation from co-panelists. However, I must point out that a politician with around 30 years of experience as an MLA should not be so easily provoked; he is unfit to remain a political leader,” the Bench remarked.
The Court stated, “People will pay close attention to his speech, statements, and behavior. Politicians should serve as role models for society. After making harmful statements that could lead to community unrest, the petitioner’s apology cannot be accepted. He should have realized he was part of a live discussion on television, which is being watched by millions. Not everyone will see the petitioner’s Facebook post the next day. Therefore, I cannot agree that the offense is erased just because the petitioner apologized.” The Bench also noted that custodial interrogation is not the only factor for granting bail; the nature of the allegations and the accused’s past must also be taken into account. “The accused’s history and the seriousness of the charges are crucial for the court’s consideration. However, even if custodial interrogation is not needed, that alone cannot justify granting anticipatory bail,” it explained.
As a result, the Court concluded, “If we grant bail in such cases, it sends the wrong message to society. People might believe that they can receive anticipatory bail even if they violate bail conditions. This message should not be conveyed. Therefore, I believe the petitioner is not eligible for anticipatory bail. There is no merit in this bail request.” Consequently, 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.
