Chennai: The Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) IT cell head Amit Malviya over his social media posts criticising Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks on Sanatana Dharma.
On Wednesday, Justice S. Srimathy, while allowing Malviya’s plea, held that the BJP leader merely reacted to a speech made by a sitting minister and that continuing criminal proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
The court observed that Malviya’s posts were in the nature of a response to a public speech already in circulation and that prosecuting him for such a reaction would cause “irreparable harm and injury”.
“This court with pain records the prevailing situation that the persons who initiate hate speech are let scot-free, but those who react to such speech face the wrath of law,” the order read, adding that courts often end up questioning the respondents while no action is set in motion against those who made the original remarks.
The case stems from a speech delivered by Udhayanidhi in 2023 at the ‘Sanatan Abolition Conference’, organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association. During the event, the minister allegedly compared Sanatana Dharma to diseases such as dengue and malaria and called for its eradication.
Following the speech, Malviya shared video clips of the minister’s remarks on social media and commented on them, alleging that the speech amounted to a call targeting a large section of the population practising Sanatana Dharma.
A complaint was subsequently filed by K.A.V. Thinakaran, district organiser of the DMK Advocates’ Wing in Tiruchirappalli South, following which an FIR was registered against Malviya under Sections 153, 153A and 505(1)(b) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The above-mentioned sections deals with provoking riots, promoting enmity between groups, and publishing statements causing public mischief.
Approaching the High Court seeking to quash the FIR, Malviya’s counsel argued that the BJP leader had only shared portions of the minister’s speech that were already widely available in the public domain and had expressed his interpretation and concerns regarding its intent. The FIR, they argued, was politically motivated and legally unsustainable.
The prosecution alleged that Malviya distorted the speech and spread misinformation by projecting it as a call for genocide against nearly 80 percent of the population. It was also argued that he had shared the posts in Hindi, with the intention of creating enmity between communities and disturbing public order.
The state further submitted that after Malviya’s posts, Ayodhya-based seer Paramhans Acharya announced a reward of Rs 10 crore for beheading the minister, claiming this demonstrated the dangerous consequences of the BJP leader’s social media activity.
After examining the materials placed on record, the court held that Malviya had not called for any agitation or violence against the minister or the ruling party.
The judge noted that Malviya’s posts primarily raised questions and sought explanations from the minister, and that such conduct did not satisfy the ingredients required to attract the penal provisions invoked in the FIR.
“There is material on record to show repeated instances of attacks on Hindu beliefs by the party to which the minister belongs,” the court noted, adding that these circumstances formed part of the background against which Malviya’s reaction had to be assessed.
The court went on to observe that the minister’s speech was directed against a religious group constituting a significant majority of the population and fell within the contours of hate speech.
Describing Malviya as a follower of Sanatana Dharma, the judge said that he merely defended his faith, which would not attract criminal liability under the IPC.
Later, BJP former state president K. Annamalai asked if the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) bloc would move an impeachment notice against Justice Srimathy.
Claiming that the court’s observation of “long-standing pattern of hostility towards Hinduism by the DMK and the Dravidar Kazhagam, Annamalai said that justice has prevailed. “Truth cannot be prosecuted nor can DMK’s political vendetta extinguish civilisational faith,” he posted on X.
Meanwhile, a DMK spokesperson said that the party would go on for an appeal against the order.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: ‘Thalaiva’ for a reason: Why TN Congress’s Rahul push & his support for Vijay are a message to DMK