Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.Srimathy,J.
Amit Malviya – Petitioner
versus
State through,The Inspector of Police and Anr. – Respondents
Crl OP(MD)No.17575 of 2023andCrl MP(MD)No.13938 of 2023
Decided on 20.1.2026
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 153, 153A and 505(1)(b) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Sharing of video of hate speech delivered a State Minister – When a hate speech is uttered by minister, petitioner opposing to said hate speech (Sanathana Dharmaeradication speech) cannot be considered as crime – Petitioner has not referred to any two communities and absolutely there is no mens rea – If present proceedings continued petitioner would suffer irreparable harm and injury – Petitioner is entitled to quash FIR – Party which the Minister belongs have repeatedly stated several things against Sanathan Dharma – While considering overall circumstances, there are records to show that there are specific incidents of attack on Hinduism and caste Hindus – By overall consideration speech of minister would clearly indicate it is totally against 80% Hindus, which come within mischief of hate speech – Petitioner who is a Sanathani is a victim of such hate speech and has only defended Sanathana Dharma from hate speech – Reply post of petitioner would not attract any of provisions of IPC, more so Sections 153, 153A and 505(1)(b) IPC – Rather minister speech would attract the provisions – Person who initiates hate speech is let scot-free, but persons who reacted for hate speech are facing wrath of law – In present case, no case has been filed against minister for his hate speech in State, but some cases are filed in other States – Continuation of present case against petitioner would amount of abuse of process of law – Impugned FIR quashed. (Paras 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28)
Result: Criminal original petition allowed.
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in CrimeNo.11 of 2023 for the offences punishable under sections 153, 153A and505(1)(b) IPC, 1860 on the file of the 1st respondent Police in respect of thepetitioner alone.
2. The facts of the case are that the Minister, while addressing thegathering in the aforementioned conference on 02.09.2023 had stated,
“… only a few things can be resisted. Some have to be eliminated. In thatsense, even Sanathan must be eliminated. We cannot resist mosquito, dengue, coronavirus. They must be eliminated. In that sense, even Sanathana must beeliminated...”
While drawing an analogy between diseases, such as coronavirus, dengue fever,malaria and the Sanathana Dharma and the need for their elimination. Thepetitioner / accused had replied to the said speech of the minister in his twitteraccount.
3. The case of the prosecution as stated by the defacto complainant is thatthe petitioner’s action of sharing a video featuring Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin, the Hon’ble Minister of Youth Welfare and Sports, Government of Tamil Nadu,wherein the video captures minister Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin attending anddelivering a speech as Special Guest at a conference titled ‘Sanathan Abolition Conference,’ organized by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers ArtistsAssociation on September 2, 2023. The allegation against the petitioner is that,with a malicious intent, he on his ‘X’ twitter handle posted the video with theaim of “provoking violence between two factions” through the dissemination offalse information. The 2nd respondent alleges in his complaint that the petitionerdistorted the said speech of the minister and posted it on his Twitter X App on02.09.20223 stating that
“The minister has linked Sanatana Dharma to Malaria and Dengue... Hethinks that it must be eradicated and not merely opposed. In short, he calls forthe Genocide of 80% of the population of Bharat, who follow SanatanaDharma; DMK is a prominent member of the opposition block and a longstandingally of the Congress. Is this what was agreed in the Mumbaimeeting?”
The further case of the prosecution is that the minister, via a clarificatory tweetto the petitioner’s tweet, responded
“I never called for the Genocide of the people who are following Sanatana Dharma... uprooting Sanathana Dharma is upholding humanity and humanequity. I stand firmly by every word I have spoken … I believe that SanathDharma is responsible for many social evils like spread of diseases likeCOVID-19, Dengue and malaria by mosquitoes”
Hence the contention of the 2nd respondent is that the petitioner intentionally misrepresented the speech of the minister with the aim of fomenting animosityamong various segments of society, thereby eroding the sense of unity amongthem.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that in reality the tweet andclarificatory tweet, it was the minister who, during his address at theaforementioned conference, made a firm statement to eradicate Sanathan statingthat like eradicating dengue, malaria and corona Sanathan should also beeradicated. This statement in itself is of a grave nature and has the potential toinflame hatred and encourage violence against the majority citizens of Bharatwho follow Sanathan Dharma. And the petitioner had simply extracted thespeech made by the Hon’ble Minister that was already in the media and hadexpressed his understanding of the same and had questioned the object andpurpose of the same. Therefore, the allegations against the petitioner are falseand absurd and politically motivated. Hence the present petition to quash theFIR is filed.
5. This Court issued notice to the 2nd respondent and private notice waspermitted. The 2nd respondent after receiving notice failed to appear throughcounsel. Hence the Court directed to print the name of the 2nd respondent andinspite of the same the 2nd respondent failed to appear either in person orthrough counsel.
6. The 1st respondent had filed detailed counter wherein it is stated
Hate Speech – When a hate speech is uttered by minister, petitioner opposing to said hate speech (Sanathana Dharma eradication speech) cannot be considered as crime.
For a communication to constitute hate speech under the penal code, the prosecution must establish the existence of mens rea—the specific intent to promote hatred or enmity between groups—and a tende....
Right to express one’s views is a protected and cherished right in our democracy. Merely because the point of view of Petitioner is extreme or harsh will not make it a hate speech as it is only expre....
The court emphasized the need to protect freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and determined the FIR lacked basis for criminal charges under Sections 353(2) and 505(2).
Point of Law : The word 'Promote' does not imply mere describing and narrating a fact, or giving opinion, criticising the point of view or actions of another person.
The court established that mere expressions of political support do not constitute an offence under Section 153A IPC unless they promote enmity between distinct groups.
FIR quashed - Through Facebook ID, posted objectionable material - Religious sentiments - Petitioner has shared post of other person, even, contents of FIR does not, prima facie, establish alleged of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
