Introduction:
In a recent legal development, the Kerala High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Arun Kumar K., Consulting Editor, and Shabas Ahammed, Sub-editor of Malayalam news channel Reporter TV. The duo faced charges under Section 11(i) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly making inappropriate comments towards a 12-year-old participant during the State School Arts Festival.
Background of the Case:
The controversy arose from a tele-skit produced during the Kerala State School Arts Festival (Kalolsavam). In the video, Arun Kumar and Shabas engaged in a scripted conversation where Arun pointed towards a young girl participating in an Oppana dance performance and asked, “Did you see that Oppana girl again?” The skit included flirtatious dialogues and a romantic song from the Malayalam film “Ustad Hotel.” The segment concluded with a teacher instructing the dancers to move ahead.
Following the broadcast, KV Manoj Kumar, Chairperson of the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, filed a complaint against the journalists, leading to their booking under the POCSO Act. The commission had earlier sought an explanation from the channel regarding the content of the video.
Arguments Presented:
Petitioners’ Stand:
Represented by Senior Counsel P. Vijayabhanu, along with advocates P.K. Varghese, M.T. Sameer, Dhanesh V. Madhavan, Jerry Mathew, Reghu Sreedharan, and Devika K.R., the petitioners contended that the tele-skit was produced with the consent of the child, her parents, and her teacher. They emphasized that there was no sexual intent behind the skit and that it was a creative piece intended for entertainment. The defence also argued that the case was politically motivated, pointing out that Reporter TV had recently aired stories critical of certain political entities.
Prosecution’s Stand:
The prosecution alleged that the journalists made distasteful and inappropriate comments about the young participant, amounting to sexual harassment under the POCSO Act. They argued that the content of the tele-skit was unsuitable and violated the child’s rights, warranting legal action against the accused.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, presiding over the case, observed that there was no grievance from the victim or her parents regarding the tele-skit. The court questioned the basis of the case, with Justice Kunhikrishnan orally remarking, “Why are you registering this case? The victim has no case… They are journalists.” The bench noted that the maximum punishment for an offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act is less than three years and granted interim anticipatory bail to the accused. The court directed that if the petitioners are arrested in connection with the case, they shall be released on bail after executing a self-bond. The matter has been posted for further hearing on February 3, 2025.
Conclusion:
This case underscores the delicate balance between creative expression and the protection of children’s rights. While the court has granted anticipatory bail to the journalists, the incident serves as a reminder of the responsibilities media professionals hold, especially when involving minors in their content. It also highlights the importance of intent and consent in legal considerations under the POCSO Act.