Kerala High Court quashes case against lawyer booked for placing wreath and sunglasses on Gandhi statue

The Kerala High Court recently granted relief to a 23-year-old lawyer accused of denigrating a statue of Mahatma Gandhi at his college campus by placing sunglasses and a Christmas wreath on a statue of Mahatma Gandhi and remarking 'Gandhi is long dead' [Adv Adeen Nazar v State of Kerala & ors].

Justice VG Arun held that while the accused's act was morally unacceptable, it did not constitute a crime under any existing law.

The judge said while the petitioner's conduct was 'undoubtedly deplorable', a criminal court could not punish actions merely for being immoral.

"Here, it is essential to note that all immoral acts are not illegal acts. Illegal acts are behaviour or actions explicitly prohibited by law, enforceable by the State, and subject to legal penalties like fines or imprisonment," the judge said.

The Court stated that even under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, the defilement of statues of national leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi was not criminalised making it clear that in the absence of a specific penal provision, such conduct, however offensive, could not attract criminal liability.

"The principle "Nullum crimen sine lege" meaning, "no crime without law", which is fundamental to criminal law, assumes relevance in this context. The principle emphasises that a person cannot be convicted of a crime, unless his act is defined as a crime by law, when it is committed," the Court made it clear.

The petitioner, advocate Adeen Nazar, was a student of Bharata Mata School of Legal Studies, when he on December 21, 2023 allegedly placed sunglasses and a Christmas wreath on a statue of Mahatma Gandhi and remarked 'Gandhi is long dead'.

A video of the incident was shared on a student WhatsApp group, sparking outrage, disciplinary proceedings and police action.

Nazar was suspended for five days from the college and directed to pay ₹5,000 to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority and a criminal case was also registered against him at Edathala Police Station under Sections 153 (provocation with intent to cause riot) and 426 (punishment for mischief) of IPC.

He subsequently approached the High Court to quash the criminal case and proceedings initiated against him.

The public prosecutor argued that the petitioner's intent behind such conduct should be assessed during trial,while another counsel pointed that the conduct of the petitioner had led to student unrest.

Nazar's counsel admitting that the conduct was inappropriate but argued that there was no criminal offence made out against the petitioner as there was no law that penalised such an act.

The Court agreed with the petitioner’s counsel and noted that although a private bill had been introduced in parliament to criminalise such acts, it did not become law.

Therefore, in the absence of a specific law deeming the act illegal, neither criminal liability under Section 153 IPC could be imposed nor would the charge under Section 426 IPC stand since the petitioner's actions did not amount to 'mischief' as defined under Section 425 IPC, which requires destruction, diminution in value or damage to property.

The Court clarified that public outrage or moral disapproval alone could not justify prosecution and concluded that in the absence of a specific law making such conduct a punishable offence, the prosecution could not be sustained.

Hence, it quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

Advocates S Rajeev, VV Vinay, MS Aneer, Dipa V, Sarath KP, Anilkumar CR, and KS Kiran Krishnan represented the petitioner.

Senior public prosecutor MC Ashi appeared for the state.

Advocates Hashim KM, Jithin Alexander Sunny, Mohammed Ashraf and Aasif Muhammed PM appeared for the third respondent Al Ameen.

[Read Order]