BJP's PC George repeatedly violating court directions by making provocative statements: Kerala High Court

BJP leader PC George has repeatedly flouted court-imposed bail conditions by making provocative statements, the Kerala High Court observed on Monday [PC George v. State of Kerala].Justice PV Kunhikrishnan took exception to George's conduct, noting that in a previous bail order of 2022 in a hate speech case, a condition was explicitly imposed restraining George from making such statements. The single-judge expressed serious concerns over George's repeated violations of court-imposed conditions and questioned his disregard for previous orders by the magistrate court as well as the High Court."There is an earlier order with a condition that he will not say such things. He is flouting the direction of the High Court, this mistake is happening again and again. You (PC George) shall not make such statements says the bail order, and now you (Senior Counsel) are arguing that it was not a speech or statement but just a discussion where he was provoked?" the judge remarked orally.The Court was hearing George's anticipatory bail plea in a new hate speech case registered against him for making derogatory statements against the Muslim community..The case against George arose from a televised debate on January 5, where he allegedly made derogatory remarks against the Muslim community.A crime was registered against him under Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 120(o) (Powers to deal with unlawful assemblies) of the Kerala Police Act.The FIR was registered following a complaint by the Muslim Youth League Municipal Committee.Earlier, the sessions court in Kottayam had rejected George's anticipatory bail plea, citing that he had violated bail conditions imposed on him in a previous case, where he was explicitly directed not to make any provocative statements.Aggrieved by this, George approached the High Court, contending that his remarks were made in the heat of the moment, that he had no intention of promoting enmity, and that his immediate apology should be taken into account..Senior counsel P Vijayabhanu, appearing for George, submitted that the former MLA was provoked during the televised discussion, leading to his remarks and that his remarks were not part of a premeditated speech. "It was not a statement or a speech, My Lord." he argued, further stating that, "A common man has not found any hatred by the comment made by George there's no mens rea. It might create hate because of the speech that can't be the stand of the prosecution, it should create such a situation to implicate him (George) under Section 196(1)(a) (promoting enmity on religious, racial, or linguistic grounds) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023," Vijayabhanu said. The Senior Counsel also contended that George's comments would not fall under Section 299 (malicious acts to outrage religious feelings) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as there was no deliberate intent behind the statements and that he immediately apologised for his statements.However, Senior government pleader P Narayanan strongly opposed the anticipatory bail plea, asserting that George had repeatedly and consistently violated previous court orders. "There is no dispute that he has been violating the court's directions. He cannot claim any privilege due to his age because he has scant regard for the court’s authority," the government pleader contended.Reading out the alleged hate speech statements made against the Muslim community by George, the prosecution argued that his comments were deliberate and could not be justified as mere provocation. "Reading the statements, it is evident this is the type of speech he is making. How can this be a provocation?" the government pleader submitted.Advocate S Rajeev, appearing for Muhammed Shihab, the de-facto complainant, also opposed the anticipatory bail plea, aligning with the prosecution's arguments.The Court persisted with its questions to George."You are flouting the court’s directions. I am concerned only about that. Not just the High Court, but even the magistrate’s court has given orders. Can I ignore this? My concern is when the High Court says something and you are repeatedly violating that. What do you say about that," the single-judge demanded. He reminded George of his position as a politician and the responsibility that comes with it and noted that caste-based politics should be stopped.."He is a man who has been an MLA for so many years, a seasoned politician. Can I ignore this conduct? I can only ask him to surrender", the judge said orally.Before posting the matter for further hearing on February 19, Justice Kunhikrishnan stated, "I can pass orders in two ways, Senior Counsel. One, without going into the merits, I can pass an order that you (George) surrender, and that same day bail could be considered by the Magistrate, or, I can pass a detailed order rejecting the bail."The Senior Counsel agreed to posting the matter on February 19 and asked the Court to extend the interim protection until then.The Court acceded to the request. .Senior counsel P Vijayabhanu, along with advocates Sruthy N Bhat, PM Rafiq, Ajeesh K Sasi, M Revikrishnan, Rahul Sunil, Sruthy KK, Sohail Ahammed Harris PP, Nanditha S, Aaron Zacharias Benny, and K Aravind Menon, represented PC George.Senior Government Pleader P Narayanan appeared for the State. Advocate S Rajeev appeared for the complainant..[Read Live Coverage]