BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N.ANAND VENKATESH
Kasthuri – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
ORDER :
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
1. This petition is filed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.612 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant while watching You Tube in his mobile phone, happened to see a video where the petitioner was giving a speech at a Brahmin's meet. In that speech, the petitioner is said to have made disparaging remarks against the womenfolk belonging to a particular community. Aggrieved by the same, the complaint was given before the respondent police and based on the same, the FIR came to be registered in Crime No.612 of 2024 on 05.11.2024 for offences under Sections 294 (b), 196(1)(a), 197(1)(c), 352 and 353 (3) of BNS 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. Heard Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.R.Bhaskaran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a social activist, political commentator and a cine-actress. She was expressing her views in a particular mee

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right but must be exercised responsibly to avoid hate speech that can lead to communal disharmony.
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.
The legal point established is that to prosecute under Section 153 IPC, the act must be illegal, malignantly done, and result in a situation causing riot. Good faith publication by an editor is not i....
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.