good taste, but then, everyone has his own way of articulating. When I expressed my disapproval, the petitioner unconditionally apologized in writing. If the management has a mole among the members and snooped the contents of conversation among them, the person who had expressed his opinion in the first instance cannot be proceeded against. In the coming days, powerful managements may be possessed with Pegasus-like technology providing them access to private conversations. Courts may dread such scenario, but then would still firmly say that charges cannot be framed on the strength of information gleaned through such means. Of course, the content shared over the end-to-end encrypted communication platform must be within the legal bounds mentioned above. 13.The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala (The Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque) observed in WP(C)No.27355 of 2018 dated 28.09.2018 (Anil Kumar A.P vs. Mahatma Gandhi University and ors) as follows : “4.Emotional outburst of a disgruntled, through social media in a louder voice is part of his right of free speech...... 5.... 6.Servitude is an outlook of an individual and not a governing norm in a public Institution. Discipline is a norm. Discipline and servitude are to be distinguished. If 10/16