Kerala High Court quashes case against man booked for WhatsApp message about CM

The Kerala High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against a public servant over a message he sent in 2018 on a WhatsApp group regarding Kerala Chief Minister's appeal to government servants to donate one month's salary to the Flood Relief Fund. [Jamal v. State of Kerala].Justice G Girish opined that the the message in question cannot be said to have been sent with the intention of causing injury to the government, which was a requirement for the offences alleged against the public servant to stand."Thus, it is not possible to say that a person reading the above comment would be motivated to avoid payment of his monthly salary to the Flood Relief Fund. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the act of the petitioner making the above post in the WhatsApp group of the employees of SupplyCo in Kasaragod, was intended to cause injury to any of the beneficiaries of the Flood Relief Scheme," the Court said in its order. .The Court, however, made it clear that its observations in this case would not be applicable in any departmental proceedings initiated against the public servant over this message. .The order was passed on a petition moved by one Jamal who was the outlet manager at a SupplyCo shop in Kasaragod when he sent the message in 2018, close on the heels of the devastating floods that hit the state that year. After Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan asked all Malayalees to contribute one month's salary to the flood relief fund, he sent a message to a WhatsApp group of the employees of the SupplyCo outlet where he worked.His message which had the CM's picture, said that all Malayalees will happily donate their salary but the State government will also have to cut down its expenditure. The message then listed six instances of expenditures incurred by the government, which Jamal said amount to misappropriation and misuse. The message concluded with a remark that the CM should first act as a role model before giving such advice to citizens. Jamal was subsequently charged under Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). .The Court noted that to establish the offence under Section 166, three ingredients have to be established:The offender must be a public servant at the time of commission of the offence;The offender must have knowingly disobeyed any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to behave himself as a public servant; and This disobedience was done with the intention to cause injury to any person, or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause injury to any person..In this case, the Court opined that while there is no contest that Jamal is a public servant, there was nothing to show that his actions were intended to cause any injury to any person.Moreover, the Court stated that going by the definition of 'person' and the context in which 'government' is used in the IPC, it is not possible to say that the term ‘person’ envisaged under it includes the government..As for Section 167, the Court noted that it only applies to public servants who are responsible for the preparation or translation of any document or electronic record. As such, it would not apply to Jamal, the Court concluded. .The Court, therefore, allowed Jamal's petition and quashed the case against him..Jamal was represented by advocates S Rajeev, KK Dheerendrakrishnan, V Vinay, D Feroze and K Anand.Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj NR appeared for the State. .[Read Order]