Riot charges over AI image: Kerala cops' hasty acts fuel Congress' narrative of intolerant CM

Kochi: Barely weeks after the Kerala government beat an embarrassed retreat from the “Pottiye Kettiye” parody song controversy, the Pinarayi Vijayan administration appears to have stepped into another self-inflicted political crisis, one that the Opposition says perfectly fits its narrative of “intolerance and insecurity” after the defeat in the local body polls.

On Saturday morning, Chevayoor police in Kozhikode detained senior Congress leader N Subramanian, a member of the KPCC Political Affairs Committee, from his residence over a Facebook post that carried what police described as an “AI-generated” photograph of the Chief Minister with Unnikrishnan Potti, an accused in the Sabarimala gold theft case. The case was registered under stringent provisions, including BNS 192 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot).

Much like the parody song episode, the move has already begun to boomerang, amplifying the very content it sought to suppress and handing the Opposition a fresh talking point on the alleged “misuse of police powers”.

According to the FIR, Subramanian shared the image “with the intention of creating political hatred between different communities and thereby inciting unrest.” The post questioned what it described as a “deep relationship” between the Chief Minister and the accused in the gold theft case. 

Legal observers, however, have expressed serious doubts over the invocation of riot-related provisions. To equate a political post, however provocative, to an attempt to incite violence is being widely seen as a dramatic legal overstretch. 

Subramanian was taken into custody, questioned at the station, and had his mobile phone seized before being released after recording his statement. But by then, the damage - or depending on perspective, the political momentum - had already been done.

Even as Subramanian was being questioned, the Kozhikode District Congress Committee staged a sit-in protest outside the police station, turning the detention into a public spectacle. In a symbolic act, party workers resurrected the now-infamous “Pottiye Kettiye” parody song and sang it outside the station, dragging the government’s earlier embarrassment back into the spotlight. 

Ironically, Subramanian, a leader who was otherwise considered relatively low-profile within the Congress, suddenly found himself at the centre of prime-time debates. Subramanian added to the optics by declaring on camera that he was “ready to be arrested,” a line that played seamlessly into the Opposition’s resistance narrative.

“What riot is caused by CM’s photo with Potti?”
Opposition Leader VD Satheesan crystallised the Congress attack with a pointed question: “What riot is being caused by the CM's photo with Potti?” The remark underscored the Opposition’s core allegation that the police machinery is being used less to maintain public order and more to insulate the political executive from criticism and embarrassment. 

For the UDF, the Subramanian episode is not an isolated incident but part of a pattern. The parallels with the “Pottiye Kettiye” controversy are difficult to miss. 

In that case, the police attempted to criminalise a parody song, set to a devotional tune, that mocked the government over the gold theft allegations and was widely used by the UDF during the local body elections. The move was framed as an effort to protect religious sentiments but was broadly interpreted as an attempt to suppress ridicule.

The backlash was swift and severe in the public political spheres, let alone on social media. The UDF took advantage of the situation to hone its narrative against the government that it suppresses critics. The government eventually chose not to proceed with the case, prompting Satheesan to quip that the administration had “run away in shame.” Whether a parody song influenced electoral outcomes remains debatable, but its power to embarrass the government clearly did.

By detaining a political leader over a digital image, the Opposition argues that the government has shown it learned little from that episode. Instead of containing the controversy, it has magnified it, ensuring wider circulation of the image and reinforcing suspicions that the state is more focused on silencing critics than addressing the substance of the gold theft allegations.

Freedom of expression, selectively applied?
The controversy has also reopened accusations of double standards, particularly when contrasted with the government’s stance on the International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK). 

When the Union Ministry denied censor exemptions to 19 films, the Kerala government adopted a defiant posture by vowing to screen them anyway in the name of artistic freedom and branding the move “anti-democratic.” Yet, critics ask, how does that commitment square with the intolerance shown toward a Facebook post? 

The UDF has extended this argument to the digital sphere. CPM-affiliated cyber wings have frequently used AI-generated content to lampoon opponents, including a widely circulated video portraying Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi dancing, dismissed by ruling party supporters as harmless satire. 

When satire turns upward, however, the tolerance threshold appears to shrink. In the Opposition’s telling, satire in Kerala is permissible only when it punches down or sideways, not at those in power.

Satheesan sharpened the attack further by juxtaposing Subramanian’s detention with what he described as leniency toward those aligned with the ruling front.

“Is granting parole to a CPM leader sentenced to 20 years for attempting to kill police officers by throwing bombs, before he even completed a month in jail, your idea of governance?” he asked, referring to the emergency parole granted to VK Nishad in Kannur. 

The contrast, the UDF argues, paints a troubling picture of a Home Department that comes down heavily on political dissent while extending generosity to convicted offenders linked to the ruling party.

A senior lawyer of the Kerala High Court offered a more restrained legal reading of the case. According to the lawyer, the allegations at best could fall under defamation or specific provisions of the IT Act, if the image is proven to be manipulated.

“Subramanian has stated that he took the photograph as a screenshot from a video released by the CMO. If that is so, it cannot be termed forged,” the lawyer said.

“Even if the image is used without context to harm reputation, it may amount to defamation. But a charge of intent to cause riot will not stand unless there is a clear attempt to create communal divide or public unrest, which is not evident from Subramanian’s post at present,” the lawyer said.

By opting for a heavy-handed response, the Pinarayi Vijayan government is reinforcing perceptions of insecurity, particularly over the unresolved questions surrounding the Sabarimala gold theft case, as repeatedly alleged by the UDF.

In a democracy, the usual remedy for a misleading or defamatory post is a clarification, rebuttal, or civil action, not a criminal case invoking riot provisions. By choosing the latter, the government has inadvertently handed the Opposition a powerful new example of what it calls “administrative arrogance and intolerance,” further fuelling a narrative it has struggled to shake.