Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 16603
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI
Durai Murugan @ Sattai Durai – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of – Respondent
Freedom of speech is subject to restrictions against hate speech; intent and context are critical in assessing liability under the law.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure - SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - The court considered the implications of hate speech, the right to freedom of speech, and the restrictions as provided under Article 19(2) while determining the accused's application for bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a political party propaganda secretary, was accused of making derogatory remarks in a public meeting, leading to a registration of a criminal case under the SC/ST (POA) Act and the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita for promoting enmity and insulting a scheduled caste community.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, charged with offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act and Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, is entitled to bail despite the restrictions imposed by the law on hate speech.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that freedom of speech is not absolute and must be exercised without defamation and hate speech. The intent behind the words used by the petitioner did not warrant custodial interrogation.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, granting bail with conditions for surrender and application to be entertained on the same day.
O R D E R
The petitioner/accused in Crime No.24 of 2024, which is pending on the file of the second respondent police has approached this Court, seeking a direction to the learned I Additional District Judge(PCR), Tiruchirappalli to accept his surrender and to consider his bail application on the same day of his surrender.
2.The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a propaganda secretary of a registered political party and during the election campaign conducted by his party, the petitioner has delivered a speech in a public meeting has been projected with a criminal colour and a criminal case has been registered in Crime No.34 of 2024, for the offence under Sections 111(1)(2), 192, 196(1), 353 of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 and under Section 3(1) (r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The complaint has been lodged by the third respondent that he has noticed a video in Youtube, wherein, this petitioner has made certain derogatory remarks as against the Ex-Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and abused him by referring to his community. Since the third respondent belongs to the scheduled caste, he felt that he has been insulted by the remarks. Therefore, he has lodged a complaint, based on which, the second respondent has registered the case. Since a case has been registered for the offence under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, the petitioner is not in a position to move an application for anticipatory bail, in view of the bar under Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Therefore, this petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a direction to the learned I Additional District Judge(PCR), Tiruchirappalli to accept his surrender and to consider his bail application on the same day of his surrender.
3.The learned senior counsel further submits that the respondent police has arrested the petitioner on 11.07.2024 and also produced him before the I Additional District Court (PCR,Trichy) for remand on 11.07.2024, at about 8.30 p.m. The learned Additional District Judge after perusing the materials found that no offence has been made out as against this petitioner and accordingly, rejected the request of the respondent police for remand. However, the respondent police is attempting to arrest this petitioner again in connection with this case and in the event, if he is arrested, he would be foisted with some other cases. In order to avoid the same, the petitioner is now inclined to surrender before the Court. However, in view of the provision under Section 18 of the Act, the petitioner seeks a direction. The learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner has now come forward to file an affidavit of undertaking before this Court that he will not make any such statements in future.
4.Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), who takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that before passing an order, an opportunity be provided to the third respondent. He also submits that this petitioner is in the habit of making allegations as against the leaders of the State, as it is generating very good revenue through his Youtube channel. According to him, some people are interested in watching Youtube channels of hate speeches and upon the viewers, the Youtube is paying the Youtubers, like petitioner. In order to attract more viewers and to earn more money, several Youtubers like petitioner are making false and defamatory statements.
5.He further submits this petitioner has intentionally made this statement by degrading the community of the third respondent, which needs to be addressed only by registering a case and therefore, the respondent police has rightly registered the case as against this petitioner.
6.This Court, considered the rival submissions made.
7.The petitioner claims that he is the propaganda secretary of a political party. The allegation as against the petitioner is that he has delivered a speech in a public meeting pertaining to his political party, wherein, h
