Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N.ANAND VENKATESH
Kasthuri – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the bail application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petition for anticipatory bail regarding hate speech allegations. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments from both parties regarding the speech. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's analysis of hate speech implications. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. conclusion emphasizing responsible speech. (Para 22 , 23) |
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
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right but must be exercised responsibly to avoid hate speech that can lead to communal disharmony.
Posting of offensive Tweet – Freedom of speech encompasses right to dissent, critique and express political discontent and criminal prosecution in matters of expression must be reserved only for case....
The judgment emphasizes the need for a thorough and fair investigation in cases of alleged offences and highlights the distinction between free speech and hate speech in the context of the penal law.
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of hate speech allegations, the responsibility of the media, and the right to free speech under the Constitution of India.
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).
(1) Gist of offence under Section 153 A IPC is intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. Intention has to be judged primarily by language of piece of writ....
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.
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
