Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, Madras High Court
Demanding Separate Nationhood For Tamil Nadu Will Not Be Sedition In Today’s Scenario: Madras High Court
|The Madras High Court was considering a Petition filed by the publishers under Section 528 of BNSS.
While quashing a sedition case against the publishers of the publishing house Kalagam Pathipppagam, the Madras High Court has held that mere recording of the statement of Thamizharasan in 1967, when he announced that Tamil Nadu should be a separate nation, would not amount to an attempt to incite hatred. The High Court further held that if any person spoke about dividing Tamil Nadu into a separate nation, the person would be referred to as having mental health issues.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS seeking the quashing of the records on the file of the 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate Court.
The Single Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held, “If any person speaks about dividing Tamilnadu into a separate nation, the person will certainly be referred to as having mental health issues and it will not excite any hatred at all among the common public. At best, it will cause annoyance and therefore, in the present social milieu, the mere publication of that sentence cannot be considered as inciting hatred against the nation or the Government of India. Further, it can be seen that in the instant book it is not even mentioned as a present day affair but only records that during the time of Thamizharasan, he announced the same that Tamilnadu should be a separate nation and that he will organise a guerilla warfare in respect of the same. Mere recording of what had happened will not even amount to an attempt to incite hatred.”
Advocate P.Pugalenthi represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate M.Mohamed Riyaz represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioners are the second and third accused, and the prime accused has already died. It was alleged that, through a publishing house by the name ‘Kalagam Pathipppagam’, run by the petitioners, a book authored and compiled by the first accused – Elangovan was released in 2014, in a public function conducted at RKV Preview Theatre, Chennai. It was recorded in the book that, in the year 1967, one Tamizharasan proclaimed in Coimbatore that the State of Tamil Nadu should be a separate nation and in order to divide and secede guerilla warfare should be adopted. The charge sheet was filed on the basis of such material.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, explained that the gravamen of the offence of sedition is, by way of written or visible representation, bringing into hatred, contempt, or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards the government established by law. “It is in this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had held that the acts have to be considered in the light of the current social milieu and the times in which we are living”, it added.
The Bench further clarified that during the days of Tamizharasan in 1967, when he formed the Tamil liberation front, etc., such a speech or publication would have incited hatred or contempt to the Government of India but in today’s scenario, India as a nation, is unified by heart and soul.
Considering that the book in question did not mention a present day affair but only recorded that during the time of Thamizharasan, he announced the same that Tamilnadu should be a separate nation, the Bench held that such recording of what had happened would not be called an attempt to incite hatred.
Thus, allowing the criminal petition, the Bench quashed the final report and the further proceedings.
Cause Title: Keera v. The State (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:2483)