Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.SRIMATHY
Amit Malviya – Appellant
Versus
State, through, The Inspector of Police, CCB Police Station – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of procedural history and factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 9) |
| 2. conflicting contentions regarding hate speech and intent behind social media posts. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. interpretive analysis of the term 'ozhippu' as potentially constituting genocide or culturicide. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. application of mens rea and hate speech legal benchmarks from established precedents. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. determination that the reaction to hate speech does not constitute a criminal offense. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
ORDER :
1.The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.11 of 2023 for the offences punishable under sections 153, 153A and 505(1)(b) IPC, 1860 on the file of the 1st respondent Police in respect of the petitioner alone.
2. The facts of the case are that the Minister, while addressing the gathering in the aforementioned conference on 02.09.2023 had stated,
“… only a few things can be resisted. Some have to be eliminated. In that sense, even Sanathan must be eliminated. We cannot resist mosquito, dengue, coronavirus. They must be eliminated. In that sense, even
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....
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.
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).
The judgment established that to prove an offence under Section 153A IPC, there must be evidence of promoting enmity between different groups, and mere statements or social media posts may not be suf....
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
