A reaction to a public statement, even if critical of a religious ideology, does not constitute an offence under sections 153A and 505 of the IPC unless there is clear evidence of mens rea to promote enmity or incite public disorder.

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 1^st 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 Sanathana must be eliminated...”

While drawing an analogy between diseases, such as coronavirus, dengue fever, malaria and the Sanathana Dharma and the need for their elimination. The petitioner / accused had replied to the said speech of the minister in his twitter account.

3. The case of the prosecution as stated by the defacto complainant is that the petitioner's action of sharing a video featuring Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin, the Hon'ble Minister of Youth Welfare and Sports, Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein the video captures minister Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin attending and delivering a speech as Special Guest at a conference titled 'Sanathan Abolition Conference,' organized by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association on September 2, 2023. The allegation against the petitioner is that, with a malicious intent, he on his 'X' twitter handle posted the video with the aim of “provoking violence between two factions” through the dissemination of false information. The 2^nd respondent alleges in his complaint that the petitioner distorted the said speech of the minister and posted it on his Twitter X App on 02.09.20223 stating that

“The minister has linked Sanatana Dharma to Malaria and Dengue... He thinks that it must be eradicated and not merely opposed. In short, he calls for the Genocide of 80% of the population of Bharat, who follow Sanatana Dharma; DMK is a prominent member of the opposition block and a long- standing ally of the Congress. Is this what was agreed in the Mumbai meeting?"

The further case of the prosecution is that the minister, via a clarificatory tweet to the petitioner's tweet, responded

“I never called for the Genocide of the people who are following Sanatana Dharma...uprooting Sanathana Dharma is upholding humanity and human equity. I stand firmly by every word I have spoken … I believe that Sanath Dharma is responsible for many social evils like spread of diseases like COVID-19, Dengue and malaria by mosquitoes”

Hence the contention of the 2^nd respondent is that the petitioner intentionally misrepresented the speech of the minister with the aim of fomenting animosity among various segments of society, thereby eroding the sense of unity among them.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that in reality the tweet and clarificatory tweet, it was the minister who, during his address at the aforementioned conference, made a firm statement to eradicate Sanathan stating that like eradicating dengue, malaria and corona Sanathan should also be eradicated. This statement in itself is of a grave nature and has the potential to inflame hatred and encourage violence against the majority citizens of Bharat who follow Sanathan Dharma. And the petitioner had simply extracted the speech made by the Hon'ble Minister that was already in the media and had expressed his understanding of the same and had questioned the object and purpose of the