Supreme Court grants relief to Kerala journalist convicted for making sexual remarks against IUML leader

The Supreme Court recently exempted Kerala-based journalist Aravindan Manikoth from surrendering in a 2013 case where he was convicted for making sexually coloured remarks against then Kanhangad Municipality Chairperson Haseena Thajudheen [Aravindan Manikoth vs State of Kerala].

In an order passed on November 20, Justice SVN Bhatti noted that Manikoth had already paid the compensation ordered by the trial court and that he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment only till the rising of the Court.

Later, on December 15, a bench comprising of Justices MM Sundresh and SC Sharma issued notice to the respondent - State of Kerala.

The Bench clarified that the protection granted to Manikoth would continue till the respondent files its reply.

The petitioner, Aravindan Manikoth, is the Managing Editor of Latest, an evening daily based in Kasaragod. He was convicted under Section 354A(1)(iv) of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises making sexually coloured remarks, in connection with the publication of a political satire column titled “CPI(M) kisses Hasina.”

The article, written by another journalist in 2013, used metaphorical language to criticise the functioning of the Kanhangad Municipality then led by Chairperson Hasina Thajudheen.

It accused the local Communist Party of “publicly kissing” the municipal administration - a political reference that prosecutors later claimed was vulgar and insulting to a woman.

Following the publication, the Hosdurg Police registered an FIR under Section 354A(1)(iv) IPC, alleging that the article “outraged the modesty” of the municipal chairperson.

The trial court in 2019 found Manikoth guilty, holding that the words used were of “such a vulgar nature” that they would offend a woman’s dignity.

He was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and ordered to pay ₹50,000 as compensation to the complainant. The Sessions Court and later the Kerala High Court both upheld the conviction, finding “no reason to interfere” with the lower court’s assessment of evidence.

In August 2025, Justice G Girish of the High Court dismissed Manikoth’s revision petition, noting that both the trial and appellate courts had properly appreciated the material on record. The High Court remarked that the publication “outraged the modesty” of the complainant and that the finding of guilt was fully justified.

Before the Supreme Court, Manikoth argued that he neither wrote the article nor intended to make any personal remarks. His counsel submitted that he merely performed his editorial duty as Managing Editor and that the piece was political satire, not obscenity. It was also contended that the conviction criminalised editorial responsibility and violated his constitutional right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a).

The petition traced a twelve-year legal battle, beginning with the 2013 FIR and culminating in concurrent findings by three courts.

While the Supreme Court has not interfered with the conviction itself, it accepted the submission that Manikoth had already complied with the financial penalty and granted him exemption from surrendering to serve the symbolic jail sentence.

Manikoth was represented by Advocate Sriram Parakkat.

[Read Orders]