Expressing That A Particular Religion Is Treated In A Particular Manner, Won’t Constitute Offence U/S. 505(2) IPC: Madras HC
The Madras High Court quashed a criminal case registered against an accused for making comments against the erstwhile Finance Minister and observed that even though the statements were not palatable and were reprehensible, those statements would not constitute an offence under Section 504 and 505(2) of IPC.
The High Court further held that a ventilation of grievance by means of expressing that a particular religion is treated in a particular manner, will not constitute an offence under section 505(2) of IPC.
The Sigle-Judge Bench of Justice N.Ananad Venkatesh said, “The purport of the statement made by the petitioner was only to treat Hindu religion on par with the other religions.”
Senior Counsel N.Anantha Padmanabhan represented the Petitioner while Additional Public Prosecutor S.Ravi represented the Respondents.
The Criminal Original Petition was filed before the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the impugned Charge Sheet on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court and quash the same in so far as the Petitioner-first accused was concerned.
The second respondent-office bearer of a political party submitted a complaint stating that the petitioner-accused gave an interview for a YouTube channel run by the second accused. During that interview, the petitioner was said to have made scandalous and false statements against the then Tamil Nadu State Finance Minister and his family members with the view to destroy their reputation. It was further alleged that he had also made provocative statements against all religions and thereby attempted to create a breach of peace and communal harmony among religions.
This interview was widely circulated and as a result, it caused disturbance among the party cadres and also the general public and it had the potential of breaking the public peace. Based on this complaint, the FIR came to be registered under Section 504 of IPC as against the petitioner and the person who was running the YouTube channel.
The Petitioner’s counsel brought it to the Court’s notice that the defacto complainant is an office bearer of a political party and the complaint itself has been given only with a political motive. It was further submitted that the entire speech given by the petitioner in the interview could only be construed as imputations made against the finance minister and his family members and the same wouldn’t constitute an offence under Sections 504 and 505(2) of IPC. If the concerned person is aggrieved, he can only institute proceedings for defamation against the petitioner.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, on the contrary, submitted that the petitioner is in the habit of making such provocative statements and there are nearly 12 cases pending against the petitioner in this regard. It was submitted that in the name of freedom of speech, such reckless statements cannot be pardoned and the petitioner has to necessarily undergo trial in this case.
On a perusal of the entire transcript of the interview that was given by the petitioner for the private YouTube channel, the Bench said, “The major part of the interview pertained to certain serious imputations made against the then finance minister and his family members. Even though these statements are not palatable and are reprehensible, those statements will not constitute an offence under Section 504 and 505(2) of IPC. At the best, those imputations touching upon the reputation of the then finance minister and his family members can only result in initiating defamation proceedings against the petitioner.”
On the aspect that the petitioner proceeded to touch upon religion also, the Bench observed that the petitioner was complaining about how the properties belonging to the Temples and other religious denominations are being dealt with by the 'Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department' ('HR & CE Department'). While emphasizing this fact, the petitioner stated that the properties belonging to the Muslims are in control of the Muslims. Likewise the properties belonging to the Christians are in control of the Christians. However, only when it comes to the properties of the Hindus, it becomes free for all and the HR & CE Department is having control over the same and they must move out of taking control of the properties belonging to Hindu Temples.
“The language used by the petitioner right through the interview is quite rude, defamatory and it does not augur well for a person who is claiming to be a founder of a political party. Unfortunately, it has now become a fashion for many to take social media platform and speak whatever they think even without realizing the impact it will have on the viewer, general public and on the system as a whole”, the Bench said. “This Country has survived for more than 75 years in spite of being diverse in terms of religion, languages, regional practices, etc. Such unity in diversity is mainly attributable to the fundamental principle that has been adopted by India and which is “Secularism”, it added.
The Bench also clarified that the provocative speech/hate speech can be used at any point of time and therefore, the Apex Court has held that the moment a hate speech is made, even in the absence of a complaint, FIR has to be registered by the police and investigation must be done because the unity of this Country can be affected by such hate speeches and therefore, there must be zero tolerance when such hate speeches are made. “The right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution cannot extend to making provocative and hate speeches”, it said.
The Court made it clear that Section 504 of IPC requires two elements and they are (i) intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking him and (ii) a person insulting must intend or know it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break public peace or to commit any other offence.
“However, mere hurling of abuses in the absence of any allegation that such abuse was made intending or knowingly that such an action would provoke or break public peace is the sine qua non which must be prima facie available. Abusing language which may lead to breach of public peace by itself is not an offence and the intention part has a lot of significance”, the Bench observed and also said, “A ventilation of grievance by means of expressing that a particular religion is treated in a particular manner, will not constitute an offence under this provision. There must be incitement of feelings of one group as against the other group and only then this provision will apply. The test that is applied while dealing with Section 153A of IPC is generally applied for this provision also.”
As per the High Court, the speech that was made by the petitioner at the best could have provoked only the party cadres of DMK party since most of the imputations were on the erstwhile finance minister and his family. Insofar as the second portion of the speech, the same didn’t in any way demean the other religions and the petitioner only intended to say that the properties belonging to Hindu Temples must be controlled only by the Hindus as is done in the case of properties belonging to the Muslims and Christians. While expressing this opinion, the petitioner had also made strong remarks against the HR & CE Department. Even if these statements were taken as it is, no offence could be said have been made out under Sections 504 and 505(2) of IPC.
The Bench also noticed that the Court below had taken rubber stamp cognizance without any application of mind.
“…even if the materials placed before this Court are taken as it is, no offence is made out against the petitioner under Sections 504 and 505(2) of IPC. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner will only result in abuse of process of law which requires the interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C”, the Bench held while allowing the Peittion and quashing the proceedings.
Cause Title: Thirumaran v. The Inspector of Police & Ors (Case No.: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1705 of 2022)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Counsel N.Anantha Padmanabhan
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor S.Ravi, Senior Counsel V.Raghavachari