The Kerala High Court on Thursday, 30 July admitted actor Ansiba Hassan's petition challenging a Magistrate's refusal to direct police to register an FIR against fellow actor Lakshmi Priya and two officials of CAN Channel, over the alleged circulation of objectionable videos purportedly aimed at damaging her reputation. The case raises pointed questions about the applicability of multiple penal provisions — and the limits of a Magistrate's discretionary power.

Court Issues Notices, Seeks Response

Justice Jobin Sebastian issued notice to the state government, the Station House Officer of Palarivattom Police Station, and the Ernakulam district police chief, granting each a week to file their responses. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing the following week.

Key Legal Questions Raised

During the hearing, the court scrutinised the specific penal provisions invoked by the petitioner and questioned whether the alleged facts actually disclosed the ingredients of those offences. Referring to one provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Justice Sebastian orally observed that it was 'not a gender-neutral provision' and remarked that 'only men can commit the offence.'

Counsel for Ansiba clarified that, besides Lakshmi Priya, two male accused had also been named — the person who conducted the interview and the owner of the YouTube channel through which the allegedly objectionable content was published. The court, however, noted that merely conducting an interview would not, by itself, render the interviewer liable under the offence cited.

How the Case Reached the High Court

After Kochi police declined to register a case on her complaint, Ansiba approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. The Magistrate sought a police report under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) but rejected the plea for directing FIR registration. Police had concluded that only the offence of defamation was attracted.

The High Court questioned whether the Magistrate had specifically ruled out the applicability of other cognisable offences. Finding that the Magistrate's order did not clearly address this issue, the court admitted the petition for detailed consideration.

Sections Invoked by the Petitioner

Ansiba has alleged offences under Sections 75(iv) and 79 of the BNS, Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, and Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police Act. She contends that the videos were circulated with the deliberate intent of humiliating and harassing her through social media platforms.

What Happens Next

With notices now issued to the state and police authorities, the High Court's next hearing will determine whether the Magistrate's order warrants interference and whether an FIR must be mandatorily registered. The case is being closely watched as it touches on the intersection of digital content, gender-specific penal provisions, and police discretion in registering complaints from public figures.