In a stark display of selective justice, Kerala Police have refused to act against the wife of UAPA-charged terror accused Siddique Kappan after she posted vulgar abuse targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Kochi Cyber Cell ACP B.A. Suresh went on record claiming the post referred not to the Prime Minister but to the ‘Modi’ caste in Gujarat — an explanation widely seen as a convenient cover to bury the offence. No FIR was registered. No investigation followed.
In what critics describe as a stark case of selective enforcement, the Kerala Police have come under scrutiny over their handling of a social media post attributed to the wife of UAPA-accused Siddique Kappan, which contained an obscene jibe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Kochi Cyber Cell ACP B.A. Suresh claimed that the reference was to the ‘Modi’ caste in Gujarat and not the Prime Minister. No FIR was registered, and no investigation followed. The case is closed!
So, is invoking a caste name now a convenient shield against scrutiny—even when the post is a vulgar jibe that targets the country’s Prime Minister, and that too made by the wife of a UAPA-charged terror accused?
If the police accept that the post targeted a caste rather than the Prime Minister, they must also confront an obvious question: does the explanation justify leaving the matter entirely unexamined, particularly when the wording itself is being challenged as obscene?
The explanation has raised questions about the standards applied by the police when dealing with potentially offensive online content. The post read: “New Sex position called ‘Modi’ where you get on top and do nothing.”
So does it raise another question about whether an entire community is being subjected to an obscene stereotype?
Critics are asking why the post did not prompt further legal scrutiny and whether the same standards would apply irrespective of the political figures or communities involved.
The Kerala Police’s handling of the matter has therefore become the focus of allegations of double standards. The key question is whether the authorities applied a consistent legal test to the post, rather than allowing the interpretation of its target to determine whether action was warranted.
BJP State Vice President shares Organiser’s post
Contrast this with the treatment meted out to BJP State Vice President Sastamangalam Councillor and retired DGP R. Sreelekha. For remarks made at a BJP public meeting in Punalur — where she compared Rahul Gandhi’s aggressive behaviour in Delhi to that of a heavily intoxicated man, noting how he shoved Congress ministers and how videos of him throwing plastic bottles had surfaced — Punalur police promptly registered a case. The charge: deliberately creating a stir to cause riots. The complaint was filed by Congress Punalur Block President C. Vijayakumar.
Sreelekha did not remain silent. Sharing Organiser’s article, “Shocking! Kerala Police Refuse Action Against UAPA-Charged Siddique Kappan’s Wife for Vulgarly Depicting PM Modi | PFI.” The retired DGP described it as a clear-cut case of selective justice.
Insult the Prime Minister, and it becomes a mere defamation matter that the police cannot easily take up. Criticise Rahul Gandhi and it instantly turns into a criminal case of inciting riots.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CEwbyES9A/
Kerala’s police response to a vulgar Facebook post targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn sharp criticism as an example of selective enforcement under the Congress-led UDF government, with critics arguing that the presence of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) as a key coalition partner influences the soft handling of cases linked to figures with alleged extremist associations.
In mid-October 2026, Raihana Siddique, wife of UAPA-accused Siddique Kappan, shared a Facebook post featuring a placard from a Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP)-linked protest associated with the “Cockroach Janta Party” demonstration at Jantar Mantar. The placard carried the line: “New Sex position called ‘Modi’ where you get on top and do nothing.” The post amplified a sexually charged personal insult directed at the Prime Minister while expressing support for the protest and related figures.
Social activist Martin Menachery filed a complaint at the Kochi City Cyber Crime Police Station alleging the post was obscene, targeted the Prime Minister, and risked creating social discord. The Assistant Commissioner of Police replied in writing that the matter pertained to defamation and referred only to the name “Modi.” Police stated they could not take direct action because “Narendra Modi is not the only Modi.” No FIR was registered.
Critics highlight the contrast with other cases. Delhi Police Special Cell registered FIRs against multiple social-media handles for objectionable and defamatory posts targeting the Prime Minister during the same protest period, invoking provisions on criminal intimidation, public mischief, and defamation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and sought account details from platforms. In Kerala itself, Kozhikode City Cyber Police arrested transgender makeup artist Jaanmoni Das and two others in August 2026 for derogatory video remarks against the Prime Minister and his family linked to the same protest; they were later released on station bail after an apology as the offences were bailable. Arrests for abusive posts against the PM have occurred in other states under relevant IPC/BNS sections.
Siddique Kappan was arrested on 5 October 2020 by Uttar Pradesh Police under UAPA and other sections while travelling toward Hathras. Investigators linked him and associates to the Popular Front of India (PFI, later banned), noted possession of material from a publication alleged to inflame tensions, referenced his stay at the PFI national office in Shaheen Bagh, and cited statements from co-accused. Parallel Enforcement Directorate money-laundering proceedings continue; lower courts have repeatedly rejected bail in that matter. The Supreme Court granted him bail in the UAPA case in September 2022; he was released in February 2023 and has remained on bail. Bail conditions were further relaxed in November 2024 (ending weekly police reporting). On 12 October 2026 he approached the Supreme Court seeking temporary release of his passport for Umrah, unfreezing of salary and PF accounts, and return of seized items.
The current Kerala government is the Congress-led UDF under Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan, which assumed office after winning a decisive majority in the 2026 Assembly elections (UDF 102 seats). The Indian Union Muslim League is a major partner, having won 22 seats and securing several ministerial berths. Critics of the police decision argue that this coalition arithmetic creates political pressure against firm action in cases involving individuals or networks associated with PFI or similar groups, even when the content involves crude personal abuse of the country’s elected head of government. They contend that treating the matter as a mere technicality about the commonality of the surname “Modi” while ignoring the clear public context and the poster’s family background amounts to shielding rather than neutral application of the law.
Abusive, sexually charged language directed at the Prime Minister exceeds ordinary political criticism. When amplified publicly on social media or in protest contexts, it risks deepening polarisation, shifting discourse from policy to personal confrontation, and eroding the mutual restraint that democratic debate requires. Legitimate disagreement with government policy is protected; reducing the highest elected executive to crude sexual invective is not a contribution to that debate.
The police technicality and the absence of action stand in contrast to enforcement seen elsewhere against similar content. In the view of those raising the issue, the combination of the offender’s personal connection to a UAPA-accused figure with documented PFI linkages, the political weight of the Muslim League within the ruling UDF, and the rapid manufacture of a procedural excuse together signal selective justice rather than even-handed law enforcement. Whether this reflects coalition management, institutional caution, or simple bureaucratic inertia remains a matter of political contention; the factual sequence—the post, the complaint, and the written refusal—has already fuelled the charge that institutional response bends according to political partnership.
