Chennai : “The choice to read is always with the reader. If you do not like a book, throw it away…The answer is not its ban,” the Madras High Court ruled on Tuesday in a landmark verdict upholding the right to free speech and exonerating Tamil writer Perumal Murugan, who famously committed “literary suicide” in January 2015 after casteist groups targeted his novel ‘Madhorubhagan’ (translated into English as ‘One Part Woman’).
Murugan, a Tamil professor, was forced to flee from his native Namakkal district after “faceless” protestors belonging to the dominant Gounder community, targeted him by labeling his novel as dubious, perverted, and containing false and vicious claims. The novel set in pre-Independent India, revolved around a childless couple where the principal female character Ponna is forced to beget a child through another man at a temple festival.
Murugan was forced to apologise at a “peace meeting” called by the Namakkal district administration.
Soon after this, Murugan had shocked his supporters by declaring on his Facebook post that he was committing literary suicide by withdrawing all his works and will not take to the pen again. He also shifted to Chennai.
A batch of petitions were moved on his behalf seeking to quash the proceedings of the “peace meeting” and the court impleaded the author as a petitioner in the case. His critics filed petitions seeking a direction to register a criminal case against him for hurting religious sentiments and ban the novel in question.
Elaborately dealing with these aspects, the First Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana in a 150-page well-articulated order, noted that “Literary tastes may vary – what is right and acceptable to one may not be so to others. Yet, the right to write is unhindered.” Noting that those opposing the novel were selectively quoting certain portions, the judges said that a book, which is the literary expression of an author, is not a single expression but it weaves a theme. “Thus, while judging a book on any parameter not necessarily restricted to obscenity, it has to be read, digested and examined as a whole. Thus, a book is not to be read like a statute to come to a conclusion. Sentences cannot be picked up here and there to give a conclusion,” the court held.
Strangely, the Government in its counter-affidavit had argued that nothing could be done on the aspect of the feelings of the authors as the people of the town were outraged towards the manner in which the author had made slanderous remarks against the womenfolk of Tiruchengode (a temple town) in the novel. The Government blamed Murugan for the situation. Strongly disapproving of this, the court said no one group of persons can threaten another group of persons and mob violence has to be prevented.
“If the State is not able to achieve the aforesaid, we will have the malice of, what in this State is called the ‘Katta Panchayat’ (kangaroo court) , raising its ugly head. These are non-legal courts which go by their own philosophy in determining and deciding social and even criminal issues,” the judges noted.
