The Kerala High Court has determined that social media posts and the sending of postcards containing derogatory and defamatory remarks about a woman fall under the offense of insulting her modesty, as defined by Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Additionally, such actions are punishable under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, which addresses nuisances caused by communication, including defamatory statements conveyed through postcards or social media.

The court, presided over by a Single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen, observed : “it has to be held that, prima facie, offence under Section 509 of the I.P.C is made out since the petitioner exhibited remarks intending to insult the modesty of the defacto complainant by writing the same in the postcards publicly,” while rejecting a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the accused.

The complaint asserted that between October 19 and October 29, 2023, the accused, motivated by a prior feud with the second respondent, Archana Varghese, spread derogatory statements about her through social media and postcards. Specifically, the accused sent postcards to the woman's father, falsely alleging that she had undergone two abortions. He also posted photos of himself with her on Facebook, further tarnishing her reputation. Consequently, the prosecution charged him under Section 509 of the IPC and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.

In defense, Advocate M. Devesh argued that the allegations did not meet the criteria for offenses under the relevant sections, asserting that the Facebook posts and postcards fell short of the threshold for insulting modesty defined in Section 509. The defense contended that mere defamatory statements on social media do not automatically trigger criminal proceedings unless they satisfy specific legal standards.

Public Prosecutor M.P. Prasanth countered that the serious nature of the accusations warranted a trial. The complainant's counsel emphasized the offensive intent behind the postcards and social media posts, arguing they were designed to harm the complainant’s dignity and privacy. Given the evidence, including electronic records, the prosecution maintained that the case should proceed to trial.

The petitioner’s counsel referenced the case of Fr. Geevargese John @ Subin John v. State of Kerala, in which the court quashed proceedings for a defamation case, citing the absence of explicit punishment for defamatory Facebook posts. However, the court in the present case concluded that the allegations encompassed not only defamatory posts but also public postcards that insulted the complainant's modesty, thereby validating charges under both Section 509 IPC and Section 120(o) of the K.P. Act.

“It is discernible from the final report that during investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the pen drive and the document produced by the defacto complainant and also recorded statement of witnesses 4 to 6 to prove that he himself had sent the above messages containing materials intended to insult the modesty of the defacto complainant and caused a nuisance of himself to the defacto complainant justifying, prima facie, commission of the above offences,” the court noted.

The court determined that the evidence collected, including a pen drive containing screenshots and videos, substantiated the allegations made by the defacto complainant. Although the petitioner argued that the lack of a Section 65B certificate for electronic evidence warranted dismissal, the court found that the necessary certificate had been provided, thereby dismissing the grounds for quashing the proceedings.

Consequently, the court rejected the petition, ruling that there was prima facie adequate evidence to move forward with the trial.