How he criticised a journalism award, was booked — then changed the law

Kumaran was arrested last year under a combination of the two sections, but decided not to approach a Kerala court to quash the FIR — instead, he moved the Supreme Court against what he called “draconian rules”.

An advocate from Kodungallur, a town near Thrissur, has emerged as the champion of free speech in Kerala after the Supreme Court, while striking down Section 66A of the IT Act on Tuesday, said that the ruling would also apply to Section 118D of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.

The ruling was a vindication for Anoop Kumaran who said he had been targeted twice for posts on Facebook — by a journalist and a hospital.

Kumaran was arrested last year under a combination of the two sections, but decided not to approach a Kerala court to quash the FIR — instead, he moved the Supreme Court against what he called “draconian rules”.

“Whatever be the noble intention of the law, the crucial aspect is how it works at the ground level,” Kumaran told The Indian Express.

“My cases clearly show that the draconian rules were being used against those who criticised the government machinery or those who were close to that system. When there were enough provisions in the IPC, which could have been used against me, why did police resort to 118D?” he asked.

The advocate went on to list the two instances when he got on the wrong side of this section:

* In January 2014, Kumaran, who is part of a rights group, “liked” a comment on Facebook referring to a nurses’ agitation related to wages at the local CRAFT Hospital. The hospital retaliated with a police complaint against all those who “liked” that comment, including Kumaran.

* The second instance, that June, involved a local journalist. “When the journalist with Malayala Manorama daily got an award, someone posted it on Facebook. I commented on Facebook, ‘Was this the post-modern model of fatherless journalism?”’

Matters came to a head three weeks later when Kumaran obtained a stay from a civil court against the felling of a tree near the local police station.

“The police developed a grudge against me,” he alleged. “A few days after I obtained the stay, the journalist lodged a complaint on my Facebook post. A couple of days later, police arrested me under Section 118D of the Kerala Police Act. I was released on bail,” Kumaran said.

“A week later, they took out the six-month-old complaint against me filed by the hospital. This time, I was arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act. Again, I was released on bail after the arrest. Now both cases are pending in court. In the next sitting (scheduled in May), we will file discharge petitions for both,” he added.

While Kumaran’s subsequent plea finally led to the Act being struck down, a former Kerala police officer and a legislator who were involved in pushing for Section 118D at various stages, sought to clarify that their original intention was to protect women.

Former DGP Jacob Punnose, who had led a police panel that drafted the law, said, “That section was meant to deal with stalking. It does not infringe upon the freedom of public expression of opinion. Section 118D is meant to address a person’s safety. However, if combined with Section 66A of the IT Act, one may feel that it is against freedom of expression. It was never meant to curb freedom of expression,” said Punnose.

Congress MLA V D Satheeshan, who had been a member of the legislative panel on the bill, said the section was incorporated in tune with the IT Act. “In Kerala, a large number of women were facing abusive comments, mails and phone calls. Police had informed us that a major chunk of complaints from women pertained to abusive calls. There had been several instances in which morphed images were used to tarnish women.”

Stressing that the section was pushed with a “good intention”, Satheeshan said, “In Kerala, thousands of women live alone while their husbands work abroad. Such women have always been the target of malicious mails or calls. The particular section was added in the Police Act with a good intention. There was no voice of dissent against this section either from the committee or from the members of the Assembly when the draft was discussed.”

WHAT IS SECTION 118D?

Section 118 of the Kerala Police Act 2011 deals with the penalty for “grave violation” of public order. As per Section 118D, any person who causes annoyance to others in “an indecent manner” by statements, comments, calls or messages by any means shall face, on conviction, jail for three years or a fine of upto Rs 10,000 or both.Section 118D of Kerala Police Act was struck down by SC on advocate’s plea.

Source:: Indian Express