The court emphasized that freedom of speech carries responsibility, and statements bordering on hate speech must be scrutinized to prevent communal disharmony.

O R D E R

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 meeting as to how the Brahmin community had been denied the identity of “Tamizhian” and whereas some of the leaders belonging to political parties who actually are Telugu speaking people had come to Tamil Nadu only 300 years ago and are proclaiming themselves to be Tamizhian. Hence, this speech made by the petitioner must be understood only with this background and bits and pieces cannot be lifted from that speech and it should not be given a convoluted meaning. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the case in hand has arisen more out of political vendetta since after the speech was delivered and the petitioner was informed that some of the Telugu speaking persons were wounded, the petitioner posted a twitter message on 05.11.2024 and explained her stand and also expressed her regret for any inadvertent ill

feeling.

5.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the case is borne out by the records and the recorded version of the speech given by the petitioner is available in the public sphere and therefore, there is no necessity to subject the petitioner to custodial interrogation. That apart, in order to cause more hardship to the petitioner, multiple First Information Reports are registered against the petitioner for the same incident.

6.Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the speech made by the petitioner was intentionally directed against a particular community and if such speech is permitted, it will cause communal disharmony and hatred among two communities. As such, the petitioner has admitted that she has made such speech and hence, all the offences are made out. Hence, the learned Additional Advocate General sought for the dismissal of the petition.

7.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and materials available on record.

8.This Court also had the advantage of listening to the alleged controversial speech made by the petitioner and the portion of the speech over which the entire controversy has arisen is transcribed hereunder:

9.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations made in the complaint is a clear misunderstanding of what was spoken by the petitioner in the meeting. The petitioner has not made any allegations against the womenfolk and what was stated by the petitioner is attempted to be twisted to suit the needs of the vested interest.

10.On carefully considering the controversial statement made by the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner has described the Telugu speaking people as the one's who came to Tamil Nadu to serve the wives and concubines living in a quarters reserved for them (Andhapuram) of a King.

11.It is true that the controversial statement which has now caused confusion does not directly attribute anyt