Kerala police have decided not to register a case regarding a social media post attributed to the wife of an individual facing charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The post contained a sexually suggestive reference using the word Modi. Officials from the Kochi cyber cell stated that the reference was interpreted as relating to a caste name in Gujarat rather than the prime minister. No first information report was filed and the matter was closed without further inquiry.
The decision has prompted public discussion about consistency in handling complaints involving online content. A complaint was submitted to the Kochi City Cyber Crime Police Station alleging that the post was obscene and could affect public harmony. In response the assistant commissioner of police provided a written reply indicating that the content concerned defamation and referred only to the surname Modi. The reply noted that Narendra Modi is not the sole individual bearing that name.
Background details show that the individual in question Siddique Kappan was detained in October 2020 by Uttar Pradesh authorities while traveling toward Hathras. He faced charges under UAPA along with other provisions. Investigators connected him to the Popular Front of India an organization later banned and cited materials and statements from associates. Parallel proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate concerning money laundering remain ongoing. Lower courts denied bail in those matters. The Supreme Court granted bail in the UAPA case in September 2022 and he was released in February 2023. Conditions were eased in November 2024 removing the requirement for weekly reporting. In October 2026 he approached the Supreme Court seeking permission for temporary passport release to perform Umrah along with access to salary and provident fund accounts.
The post in question appeared in mid October 2026 and referenced a placard from a protest event at Jantar Mantar. It described a supposed new position named Modi involving inaction while on top. The post expressed support for the demonstration. Critics have pointed to differing responses in other jurisdictions where similar complaints led to registration of cases under provisions covering criminal intimidation public mischief and defamation. In Kerala itself authorities in Kozhikode arrested individuals in August 2026 for video remarks targeting the prime minister and family members though they were later released on bail after apologies.
A separate incident involved a retired director general of police and BJP state vice president who faced a case registered by Punalur police after comments at a public meeting comparing the conduct of another political figure to that of an intoxicated person. The complaint alleged deliberate provocation to incite unrest. The retired officer shared an article highlighting the contrast in treatment and described the situation as an instance of uneven application of law.
The current state government is led by the Congress headed United Democratic Front with the Indian Union Muslim League as a coalition partner. Observers have noted that enforcement patterns in cases involving figures associated with banned organizations appear to vary depending on the political context. Supporters of the police decision maintain that the interpretation of the post as caste related removes it from direct criminal scrutiny under certain sections. Opponents argue that the wording itself warranted examination regardless of the claimed target.
Legal experts have observed that complaints of this nature often hinge on whether the content meets thresholds for obscenity or defamation. In the absence of an FIR the matter receives no formal investigation into intent or potential impact. Similar posts in other states have resulted in account information requests from platforms and subsequent proceedings. The Kerala episode has therefore become part of broader conversations about uniform standards across different regions and political alignments.
The wife of the accused has not issued a public clarification regarding the intent behind the post. The protest referenced in the shared content was organized by a group linked to Citizens for Justice and Peace and featured participants from various backgrounds. No additional complaints or follow up actions have been reported from the Kochi cyber cell since the initial response.
Public reaction has included calls for greater transparency in how cyber crime units assess complaints. Some commentators emphasize the need for clear guidelines that do not depend on subjective readings of surnames or caste references. Others stress that political figures should receive the same protections as ordinary citizens when facing potentially defamatory material. The episode continues to be cited in discussions about selective enforcement under the present coalition arrangement in the state.
