In a significant judgement, the Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a public servant accused of posting "sarcastic comments" in a WhatsApp group regarding the Chief Minister's appeal to government employees to donate one month's salary to the Flood Relief Fund following the devastating Kerala floods of 2018. The accused, Jamal, an Outlet Manager of SupplyCo at Kasaragod, faced charges under Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with the conduct of public servants in disobeying lawful orders and framing incorrect documents with an intent to cause injury.

The petitioner’s comments, shared within a WhatsApp group of SupplyCo employees, began with a caption that Malayalees would "happily donate their salary but the government must reduce its expenditures." This was followed by references to six instances of alleged financial impropriety or excessive expenditure by the government and concluded with the remark that the Chief Minister should "set a role model before advising others."

The court scrutinized the applicability of Section 166 IPC, which penalizes public servants for disobeying directions of law with an intent to cause injury to a person. Justice G. Girish, delivering the judgment, observed that the petitioner’s remarks did not demonstrate any intent to cause harm. He stated, “While service rules necessitate that government employees refrain from publicly criticizing governmental policies, there is absolutely no material to indicate that the petitioner’s comments were intended to cause injury to any person or group.”

The prosecution had argued that the petitioner’s conduct violated service norms prohibiting public criticism of government policies. While acknowledging this argument, the court held that the breach of service rules does not automatically translate into criminal liability under Section 166. Justice Girish remarked, “The term ‘person’ in Section 166 cannot be interpreted to include the government. The inclusive definition under Section 11 IPC encompasses companies, associations, and bodies of persons but not governmental entities.”

Additionally, the court held that the petitioner’s comments did not dissuade others from contributing to the relief fund. Justice Girish noted, “The opening words of the petitioner’s remarks demonstrate that he recognized the generosity of the people of Kerala. The critique, focused on government austerity, cannot be construed as a call to refrain from donations.”

Turning to the allegations under Section 167 IPC, the court clarified that the provision applies exclusively to public servants responsible for preparing or translating documents or electronic records in their official capacity. Justice Girish observed, “The petitioner’s role as an Outlet Manager of SupplyCo did not involve the preparation or translation of documents. The facts of this case are unrelated to any such duty being performed in a manner to cause injury to any person.”

The court unequivocally stated that there was no prima facie case to proceed under either Section 166 or Section 167 IPC. It concluded, “The acts attributed to the petitioner, even if they contravene service discipline, do not satisfy the ingredients of the criminal offences alleged.”

In quashing the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kasaragod, in CC No. 1468/2018, the court issued a caveat: “The observations in this judgment pertain solely to the criminal case and do not preclude the initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner for his conduct.”

The petitioner was represented by Advocates S. Rajeev, K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, V. Vinay, D. Feroze, and K. Anand, while the state was represented by Advocate Sangeetharaj N.R. 

Case Title: Jamal v. State of Kerala

Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 2022 of 2019

Bench: Justice G. Girish