Hate Speech Initiators Go Scot-Free, Those Who React Face Wrath: Madras HC Quashes FIR Against Amit Malviya For His Reaction To Udhayanidhi Stalin’s "Eradicate Sanatana" Remark

The Court noted a long history of alleged attacks on Hindu symbols and practices by the Dravida Kazhagam and subsequently along with by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, for the past 100 years. Then referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Veerabadran Chettiar v. E.V. Ramasami Naicker 1958 AIR 1032 (1959 SCR 1211) cautioning against such conduct, and held that, in that broader context, the petitioner had merely questioned the underlying intent of the Minister’s speech.

Consequentially, a bench of Justice S. Srimathy categorically observed, “Hence by overall consideration the speech of the minister would clearly indicate it is totally against 80% Hindus, which come within the mischief of hate speech. The minister hails from the above legacy. Therefore, based on the above background the speech of the minister is hate speech only. The petitioner who is a sanathani is a victim of such hate speech and has only defended the Sanathana Dharma from the hate speech. From the above discussion it is evident that the reply post of the petitioner would not attract any of the provisions of the IPC, more so sections 153, 153A and 505(1)(b) IPC. Rather the minister speech would attract the above provisions”.

Senior Advocate N Anantha Padmanabhan appeared on behalf of the Petitioner and M. Ajmal Khan, Additional Advocate General, appeared for the Respondent.

“This Court with pain records the prevailing situation that the person who initiates the hate speech are let scot-free, but the persons who reacted for the hate speech are facing the wrath of the law. The Courts are also questioning the persons who reacted but are not putting the law on motion against the person initiated the hate speech. In the present case, no case has been filed against the minister for his hate speech in State, but some cases are filed in the other States”, the bench further noted.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the respondents’ reliance on historical and spiritual figures to justify criticism of Sanatana Dharma, holding that personalities such as Mahatma Gandhi, Kamarajar, Buddha, Ramanuja and Vallalar practiced or upheld core aspects of Sanatana Dharma, and that portraying them as opponents reflected clear misinformation, except in the case of Periyar.

In the present matter the criminal original petition under Section 482 CrPC challenged the FIR registered by the Central Crime Branch, Tiruchirappalli, which alleged offences under Sections 153, 153A and 505(1)(b) IPC on grounds that Malviya had “distorted” the minister’s speech to provoke enmity.

For context, Udhayanidhi Stalin a serving Minister in the Tamil Nadu State Government, while addressing a press conference in Chennai had stated, "A the controversial statements made few days ago, Shri Udhayanidhi Stalin, “… only a few things can be resisted. Some have to be eliminated. In that sense, even Sanathan must be eliminated. We cannot resist mosquito, dengue, coronavirus. They must be eliminated. In that sense, even Sanathana must be eliminated...”.

Justice Srimathy further observed that the Tamil phrase “Ozhippu” used by the minister, translated as “abolish” or “eradicate”, carried connotations of elimination when applied to Sanatana Dharma and, in context, could imply the “genocide” or “culturicide” of those who follow it, and therefore constituted hate speech. By sharing the video and questioning its implications, Malviya was merely reproducing the minister’s own words and did not incite violence or enmity between groups, essential ingredients for the alleged IPC offences.

The Court further noted that no case had been initiated against the minister for his remarks in the State, while criminal proceedings were pursued against a person who merely highlighted those remarks, and held that continuation of the FIR would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

CAUSE TITLE: Amit Malviya v. State through, The Inspector of Police Crl.OP.(MD)No.17575 of 2023

Appearances:

Petitioner: N Anantha Padmanabhan Senior Counsel for M/s. APN Law Associates

Respondents: M. Ajmal Khan, Additional Advocate General assisted by A.S. Abul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate (Crl Side)

Click here to read/download the Order