The court upheld the fundamental right to freedom of speech, ruling that the petitioner's speech did not incite public disorder or hatred, and the complainant lacked standing to file the complaint.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed to quash C.C. No. 5633 of 2023 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, wherein the petitioner facing trial for the alleged offences under Sections 153, 505(1)(b), 505(2) of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Kumaran, District Secretary of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam gave a complaint stating that You Tube channel administered by the petitioner herein under the name of “Mai Chennai-360” had uploaded his speech with intent to provoke, riot and to cause fear to some Section of the public and to induce others to commit an offence against the public tranquillity. Alleging that his speech in the You Tube Channel had created enmity and hatred between classes, he sought for action against the petitioner. The respondent police has registered the complaint in Crime No. 78 of 2022 under Sections 153, 505(i)(b) and 505(2) of IPC and taken up for investigation.

3. On perusing the speech of the petitioner circulated through You Tube and recorded the statements of witnesses, Final Report filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the same was taken on file in C.C. No. 5633 of 2023.

4. Sum and substance of the objectionable speech as found in the complaint is that, the petitioner had expressed that in front of Sri Rangam Temple, where more than a lakh of devotees visit daily, there is a statute which denigrates believer of God. He also criticised priest of Christian community and members of Islam religion. This according to the complainant warrant action under Sections 153, 505(1)(b) and 505(2) of IPC.

5. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. G. Karthikeyan, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complainant Kumaran has no locus to maintain this complaint since the petitioner has not mentioned either the name of E.V. Ramasamy Naicker or Periyar in his speech. His reference to Mohan C. Lauerus, a Christian Priest is only recording his objection to his preaching to convert Hindus. Similarly, reference to 50 Muslim countries, he had said nothing objectionable, but how fast they are able to spread. When the complaint is not from Lauerus or any other person from the Muslim community, the police ought not taken the complaint on file and filed the final report.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that by installing just opposite to an ancient temple a statute with plaque sayings “one who believes in God is a fool, one who worships in God is a barbarian and one who propagates God is a rascal” is the real provocative act for which the police ought to have taken action against the organisation which has installed the statute for inducing hatred among the public. Contrarily, they have registered the complaint against the petitioner, who out of anxious spoken about the hurt and ill-will caused by such act.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent has filed a counter wherein it is stated that the speech of the petitioner affects the faith of other persons from religion. The right conferred under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution of India has been injured by provocative speech of the petitioner. The statue of Thiru. E.V. Ramasamy Naicker @ Periyar is a physical property installed by Thiru. K. Veeramani, Head of Dravidar Kazhaga, in December 2006. The speech of the petitioner to damage the said statue attracts offences under Sections 153, 505(1)(b) and 505(2) of IPC.

8. The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the counter filed by the Inspector of Police considered in the light of the You Tube speech of the petitioner. The petitioner herein is a Stunt Master in Tamil Cinema. He is also State Secretary, Art and Culture Wing of Hindu Munnani. As per the Arrest Memo, his speech has received 138 likes, 7245 views and 230 comments. Admittedly, after hearing his speech in the You Tube Channel, there had been no distur