The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to filmmaker Akhil Marar over alleged seditious remarks regarding the Pahalgam incident and India-Pakistan border truce. Read more on the legal developments and constitutional insights.

Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Akhil Marar Over Alleged Seditious Remarks

Updated by Prabhat Kumar Biltoria on 29 May 2025

In a high-profile legal development, the Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to filmmaker Akhil Marar, following a case filed against him for alleged seditious remarks related to the Pahalgam incident and the India-Pakistan border truce.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas Presides Over the Bail Hearing

The case was heard by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, who ordered Akhil Marar to surrender his mobile phone and appear before the investigating officer on June 10 at 10 a.m. In the event of an arrest, the court directed that Marar should be released on bond.

Facebook Video at the Center of Controversy

The complaint stems from a Facebook video allegedly uploaded by Marar, which was considered a threat to India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Kottarakkara police registered the case under Section 152 of the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).

Marar stated that the video was taken down within an hour of uploading after realizing it might be misinterpreted. He denied all allegations, asserting that they were politically motivated and baseless.

Prosecution Seeks Gadget Seizure and Custodial Interrogation

Despite Marar’s defense, the prosecution argued that confiscating the device and conducting an in-custody interrogation were necessary for proper investigation. They opposed the anticipatory bail plea, citing the seriousness of the charges.

Freedom of Speech Upheld by the Court

After thoroughly reviewing the case, the court highlighted that freedom of speech and expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The court further emphasized that Article 19(2) allows for only reasonable restrictions.

Since Marar’s post did not include any explicit call for violence or secession, the court found no basis for the charges under sedition. This ruling reflects a careful balance between national security concerns and civil liberties.

Conclusion

This case brings renewed focus on the legal interpretation of seditious content in the digital era and the constitutional safeguards of free expression in India. As the investigation continues, Akhil Marar’s legal battle is likely to remain under public and media scrutiny.