Kerala HC Quashes Case Against Goa Governor PS Sreedharan Pillai Over Remarks Concerning Entry of Women in Sabarimala Temple

The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated in 2018 against Goa Governor PS Sreedharan Pillai over his contentious remarks on the Supreme Court’s judgment allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple. Pillai, who was the BJP State President at the time, made the remarks during a private meeting of the BJP's youth wing, the Yuva Morcha Samsthana Samithi. He reportedly said that the temple's thanthri (administrator) could close the temple's nada (sanctum doors) to women and the same would not amount to contempt of court.

An FIR was registered against Pillai, alleging that his remarks, broadcasted by the media, incited Ayyappa devotees to engage in criminal activities. He was charged under Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalizes statements intended or likely to create fear or alarm among the public or provoking or inducing the commission of acts against the State or public tranquility.

Notably, the Apex Court in 2018 in the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association vs The State Of Kerala, declared that women can enter Sabarimala without any restriction regarding their age. However, Pillai in his speech stated that every effort should be made to prevent women between the age of 10 and 50 from going to Sabarimala.

The High Court, presided over by a Single judge bench of Justice PV Kunhikrishnan delivered the verdict, finding that Pillai's statements did not warrant prosecution, observing that “Nowadays there is a trend to sensationalise speeches by taking isolated sentences in it, which is to be deprecated.”

The court, emphasising that the essential ingredients of Section 505 (1)(b) of IPC were not satisfied, stated, “the participants of a meeting of the youth wing of BJP in a conference hall of a hotel cannot be termed as a “section of the public” used in the context of Section 505(1)(b) IPC.”

“Here is a case where the petitioner was only making a speech in a conference hall and that also in a meeting of the youth wing of BJP. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner made a speech which is likely to cause fear or alarm to the “public,” the court further noted.

With regards the coverage and broadcast of the speech by media, the court found that the speech was delivered at a private event, and there was no evidence to suggest that Pillai had invited the media to cover it. “Simply because the speech, made by the Petitioner in a hotel, was published by the news channels and media, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the offences punishable under Section 505(1)(b) IPC. Media has got a right to publish news and therefore media also cannot be blamed,” observed the court.

The court took into account that while Pillai advocated efforts to prevent women aged 10-50 years from entering Sabarimala, he also stressed that the issue should not escalate into a conflict. His speech included calls for unity among religious communities to protect Sabarimala's traditions. In this regard the court pointed out that it has to assess a speech in the totality of the circumstances. “The Court has to consider the meaning, intent and impact of the speech, instead of isolating one or two sentences. The Court has to assess the speech as a whole, rather than taking fragmented parts of it,” it stated.

The court also underscored that fair and reasonable criticism of judicial rulings is permissible and even encouraged. “A fair and reasonable criticism of a judgment, which is a public document or which is a public act of a judge concerned with the administration of justice, could not constitute contempt,” it stated, referencing prior observations by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that owing to the post being held by Pillai, he is immune from prosecution. The court noted,“the petitioner is entitled to immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution as long as he remains the Governor of Goa.”

Consequently, the FIR filed against the Pillai, was quashed.

Cause Title: P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI v STATE OF KERALA [CRL.MC NO. 7573 OF 2018]

Appearances: The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai and Advocates Sujesh Menon VB and TK Sandeep. Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj NR appeared for the State.