Introduction:

In P C George v. State of Kerala [Bail Appl. No. 1874 OF 2025, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 125], the Kerala High Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of BJP leader PC George, who was booked for making derogatory remarks against the Muslim community during a live television debate on Janam TV. Justice PV Kunhikrishnan, while dismissing the plea, expressed concerns over the rising frequency of hate speech based on caste and religion, calling such tendencies a direct affront to the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court also pointed out inadequacies in the existing penal provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in dealing with hate speech crimes, where offenders can often escape with just a fine. Observing that even repeat offenders face no enhanced punishment, the Court directed the Registry to forward the order to the Law Commission of India for consideration. The ruling emphasized that politicians must be role models and should be held accountable for statements that threaten communal harmony.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Petitioner’s Submissions: Senior Advocate Vijayabhanu, appearing for PC George, argued that his client’s comments were made in the heat of the moment and were not intended to incite communal disharmony. He contended that the remarks were a mere “slip of the tongue,” triggered by provocation from a co-panelist. Furthermore, the petitioner had already apologized for his remarks on his Facebook page, indicating his remorse. The counsel argued that custodial interrogation was not necessary, and therefore, bail should be granted. Additionally, it was pointed out that the petitioner had served as an MLA for three decades, and his long-standing public service should be taken into consideration while deciding his bail application.

Respondent’s Submissions: The State, represented by Special Government Pleader P Narayanan and Senior Government Pleader Sajju S, strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner had a history of making communal statements targeting a particular community. The prosecution highlighted that in 2022, George had faced similar legal proceedings for hate speech, and despite being granted bail with a specific condition to refrain from such remarks, he had violated the condition. This pattern of repeated hate speech demonstrated that the petitioner had not learned from past legal action, warranting stricter judicial intervention. The respondents also argued that granting bail in such cases could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging political figures to make inflammatory statements with impunity. They contended that hate speech must be curbed at the source to maintain communal harmony.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the submissions, the Kerala High Court ruled against granting anticipatory bail to PC George. The Court noted that his history of making communal remarks showed a deliberate pattern, rather than an isolated incident. Referring to the inadequacy of the penal provisions under the BNS, the Court observed that Section 196(1)(a) (promoting enmity between different groups on religious grounds) and Section 299 (outraging religious feelings through deliberate and malicious acts) allow offenders to escape with a fine, making the punishments lenient and ineffective as deterrents. The Court emphasized that even second-time offenders do not face enhanced punishment, calling it a serious gap in the law that Parliament and the Law Commission must address. Expressing concern over the increasing instances of statements based on caste and religion, the Court asserted that such tendencies must be curtailed at the earliest to uphold constitutional values.

Dismissing the argument that the statements were a “slip of the tongue,” the Court remarked that a senior politician with 30 years of experience should not be so easily provoked. The judge firmly stated that a politician who lacks restraint in public discourse is unfit to continue as a political leader. The Court also rejected the petitioner’s Facebook apology, reasoning that politicians, being public figures, are closely watched, and their statements have a far-reaching impact on society. An apology after making divisive statements is insufficient to undo the harm caused. The Court reiterated that bail cannot be granted merely because custodial interrogation is not required; instead, the seriousness of the allegations and the antecedents of the accused must be taken into account. Given the petitioner’s repeated violations and the communal nature of his remarks, the Court found no grounds to grant bail.