Kochi, Dec 18 (IANS) The Kerala High Court has quashed legal proceedings against a state government employee who made a “sarcastic comment” in a WhatsApp group about Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s appeal for government employees to donate a month’s salary to the 2018 flood relief fund.
The employee, a manager at the state-owned SupplyCo, had shared a post in the WhatsApp group of SupplyCo employees in Kasargod. The post included a picture of the Chief Minister’s appeal captioned, “Malayalees will happily donate their one-month salary, but you have to reduce the expenditure.”
The post further criticized certain government expenditures and remarked that the Chief Minister should lead by example before giving advice.
The employee was charged under Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly disobeying the law and preparing an incorrect document. He approached the High Court seeking to quash the case.
In its judgment, the Court said, “It is also pertinent to note that the comment posted by the petitioner quoting the appeal of the Chief Minister to donate one month’s salary to the Flood Relief Fund, is not one exhorting others to refrain from contributing their monthly salary as requested by the Chief Minister. On the other hand, the opening words of that comment itself show that the people of Kerala would wholeheartedly give their monthly salary for the land, but there shall be austerity measures on the part of the Government to reduce the expenditure. Thus, it is not possible to say that a person reading the 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 ruled that the charges under Section 166 IPC, which pertains to a public servant disobeying the law with intent to cause harm, were not applicable. The Court clarified that the term “person” under the IPC does not extend to the government. Similarly, it found that Section 167 IPC, related to preparing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury, was also not applicable in the case.
“The facts and circumstances of this case are in no way related to the preparation or translation of any document or electronic record as part of the petitioner’s official duty, in a manner intended to cause harm to any individual,” the Court stated.
“It has to be stated that the offense under Sections 166 and 167 the IPC is prima facie not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case,” the court added and quashed the proceedings against the employee.
–IANS
sg/skp
