Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Charges were placed against an individual who visited the Kerala Chief Minister's meeting with endosulfan tragedy survivors with a placard stating that reports of the health implications of the pesticide were false.
The Kerala high court on Tuesday turned down the cancellation of criminal proceedings against an individual who visited the Kerala Chief Minister's meeting with endosulfan tragedy survivors with a placard describing reports of the health implications of the pesticide as untrue.
After the Supreme Court directed the formulation of a scheme to offer compensation to victims whose health was suffering from the pesticide, the petitioner made claims that no methodology was adopted to discern whether any calamity was actually created by the utilization of Endosulfan.
The petitioner levelled allegations that false claims regarding Endosulfan were being made to reduce the crops of the plantation factory he worked at and to make market changes. He alleged that folks affected by other health problems were fraudulently listed as Endosulfan victims. the supply of compensation to Endosulfan victims would end in looting of public funds, he declared.
With these claims, he went with a placard to a gathering between the Chief Minister and therefore the victims.
The placard, loosely translated from Malayalam, stated that there was no menace associated with the utilization of Endosulfan within the Kasaragod district which the corruption under the guise of such a problem and therefore the misuse of State funds should stop.
In completing this demonstration, Nair stated that he was exercising his right to free speech.
Rejecting his plea to quash the FIR registered over the incident, the Bench of Justice MR Anitha acknowledged that the offence punishable by Section 153, IPC didn't require a riot to truly happen.
In this case, Nair went with the placards to a gathering attended by Endosulfan victims who sought compensation.
Since the petitioner, who was well-versed with the chain of events, was likely to possess known the possible consequences of his actions, his act was clearly covered by the supply, the Court said. As noted within the judgment,
"... naturally the participants within the meeting would be the victims of endosulfan who have available the list prepared by the authorities ... it can't be forgotten that there would be persons who are eligible also would be participating within the meeting.
"The act of the petitioner would clear amounts to a reckless or thoughtless act with no regard for the consequence. the likelihood of the real victims of Endosulfan got provoked by seeing the placard can't be ruled out clear ."
Justice MR Anitha
To the submission that he didn't shall spark a riot and was just exercising his right to free speech and expression, the Judge acknowledged that maintenance of public order was a ground on which freedom of speech and expression might be restricted.
The Kerala Public Meetings Act aimed toward controlling disorderly behaviour publicly meetings and thus was an inexpensive restriction on free speech, she observed. As noted in her judgment,
"So when the petitioner displays a placard containing the writings quoted above during a meeting held for distribution of compensation to the victims of endosulfan which too at the time when the Chief Minister is making a speech in reference to the function, there won't be any doubt that the act of the petitioner/accused would cause confusion or disturbances of the traditional working of mind of the victims who were assembled there clear. Whether the aim of the petitioner was for preventing the transaction of the business that meeting was called etc are matters to be proved during evidence."
For these reasons, Justice Anitha concluded that the FIR against Nair was unfit to be quashed, a minimum of at the stage it presently was in.
Nair's demonstration at the endosulfan victims meeting was following a supposed investigation he undertook into the victim compensation scheme prepared by the government.
He claimed that reports about the health implications of the now-banned pesticide and therefore the attribution of physical disorders to its use were a hoax. He stated that he has worked with the pesticide which it's not harmed him in any way.
Although it remarked that his concern about illegally taking advantage of the compensation scheme was legitimate, the Court took exception to his choice of venue for the demonstration.
With the observation that Nair had not shown that his case deserved to be quashed, the petition was dismissed.
86540
103860
630
114
59824