'Kafir screenshot' case: High court orders Vadakara Police to produce case diary

Kochi: The High Court of Kerala has directed the Vadakara Station House Officer, investigating the politically sensitive 'kafir screenshot' case, to produce the case diary before August 12.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas called for the case diary on Monday, July 29, while hearing a writ petition filed by Muslim Students' Federation (MSF) leader Muhammad Khasim P K. He had accused the Kerala Police of running a shoddy investigation and making no efforts to arrest the real culprits behind the message spread in his name.

The message -- a screenshot of a post purportedly written by Khasim in a WhatsApp group called Youth League Nedumbramanna -- was widely shared by pro-CPM Facebook handles on April 25, the eve of the Lok Sabha election. The most prominent handles were CPM State Committee member and former MLA of Kuttiadi K K Lathika and 'Porali Shaji', a page with around 8 lakh followers.

The message called CPM leader and LDF's Vadakara candidate K K Shailaja a 'kafir' (infidel) and sought vote for Congress leader and UDF candidate Shafi Parambil over his religious identity hit Vadakara Lok Sabha constituency on April 22, the eve of the voting day. The CPM used the screenshot to accuse the UDF of running a communal election campaign.

MSF Kozhikode district secretary Khasim denied writing such a message, and the Muslim Youth League denied running a WhatsApp group called Youth League Nedumbramanna. The two are frontal organisations of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), an ally of the Congress and a constituent of the United Democratic Front (UDF). The UDF accused the CPM of fabricating the message to polarise the voters and had vowed to go to the bottom of the case to "expose the CPM".

Adv Mohammed Shah, the State Secretary of the IUML, representing Khasim told the High Court on Monday that the police did not name the admins of the Facebook page 'Ambadimukk Sakhakkal Kannur' as accused even though the social media giant shared the details of the admin with them.

They should have been booked under the stringent Section 153A of the IPC for promoting enmity between religious grounds. But the delay in police action gave the admins time to delete the 'Ambadimukk Sakhakkal Kannur' page, he said. The police investigation was not going in the right direction, he alleged.

Adv Shah had initially urged the court to direct the police to submit a progress report on the investigation into the case. Vadakara Station House Officer - Inspector Sumesh T P submitted the progress report to the High Court on June 10. The report said the cyber police went through Khasim's phone, and prima facie found no evidence against him.

The report also said that the nodal officer of Facebook was booked for abetment for not removing the communal screenshot from the platform despite repeated requests. The public prosecutor, representing the SHO, went on to request the High Court to dismiss Khasim's petition.

But Justice Thomas did not and allowed Khasim to respond to the police report. His counsel Adv Shah filed a 12-page reply picking holes in the investigation and urging the court to reject the police report for not looking into the political conspiracy or finding out how Lathika got the screenshot.

He also told the court that the police did not file an FIR based on the complaint filed by Khasim who first reported the 'kafir' message doing the rounds on the internet. The police filed two FIRs, the first one based on a complaint filed by a CPM leader in which they booked Khasim under the stringent Section 153A of the IPC for promoting enmity between two communities on religious grounds; the second one against nameless culprits based on a complaint filed by Nidumbramanna Youth League branch committee general secretary Ismail M T.

In the second FIR, police did not invoke Sections 153 - A, 465 and 469 of IPC though the complaint had specific allegations of promoting enmity between religious grounds, forgery and forgery to harm reputation. Instead, police invoked only milder charges of Section 153 of IPC (provoking riots through illegal means) and Section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act (creating nuisance through means of communication) in the second FIR.

Khasim told the High Court that the police, by not filing an FIR in his complaint, violated the 2022 Supreme Court judgment in the Aswini Kumar Upadhyaya vs Union of India case. The Supreme Court had said police should register suo moto cases if offences under sections 153A, 153B, 295A or 505 of the IPC are committed.

The case diary will have the progress and updates in chronological order, statements of witnesses and suspects, notes on the questions asked, details of evidence collected so far, observations and findings of the investigating officer, copies of official correspondence related to the case, and legal procedures followed till now. The case diary will expose the laxity, if any, in the police investigation, said Khasim.