Chennai, Jan 20: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday quashed an FIR registered against BJP Information Technology Cell head Amit Malviya, categorically holding that the speech delivered by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin at a “Sanatana Abolition Conference” amounted to hate speech against a particular religious community.
Court finds continuation of case an abuse of law
Justice S. Srimathy, allowing Malviya’s petition, set aside a case registered by the Central Crime Branch police, Tiruchirappalli, under Sections 153, 153A and 505(1)(b) of the IPC, holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Background of the FIR
The FIR arose from Malviya’s post on X (formerly Twitter) reacting to a speech made by the minister on September 2, 2023, in which Udhayanidhi Stalin compared Sanatana Dharma to diseases such as dengue, malaria and COVID-19, stating that such things cannot merely be opposed but must be “abolished” or “eradicated”.
Earlier High Court ruling cited
Referring to earlier writ proceedings decided by the High Court in March 2024, Justice Srimathy noted that the court had already held the minister’s remarks to be hate speech. Quoting from that judgment, the court recalled that the statements “spew hate against a particular community, the Hindus, and constitute disinformation and hate”.
Interpretation of minister’s remarks
The judge analysed the Tamil expression “Sanathana Ozhippu” used in the speech and observed that its English equivalents — including “abolish”, “eradicate” and “eliminate” — carry grave implications when applied to a religion. The court held that advocating the eradication of Sanatana Dharma necessarily targets its followers and could amount to “genocide” or “culturicide”.
“Hence, by overall consideration, the speech of the minister would clearly indicate it is totally against 80% Hindus, which comes within the mischief of hate speech,” the court said, adding that Malviya’s post questioning whether the remarks implied genocide was a legitimate reaction to the minister’s own words.
No offence made out against Malviya
Rejecting the prosecution’s argument that Malviya’s tweet incited enmity, the court held that the post neither promoted violence nor referred to two competing communities, a prerequisite for offences under Sections 153 and 153A of the IPC. The court further ruled that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner.
Concern over selective prosecution
Justice Srimathy also expressed concern that while the minister who allegedly initiated the hate speech had not been prosecuted in Tamil Nadu, criminal law was set in motion against a person reacting to it. “Persons who initiate hate speech are let scot-free, while those who react face the wrath of law,” the judge observed.
Also Watch:
Police affidavit criticised
The court further criticised political overtones in the police counter affidavit, reiterating that investigating officers are expected to remain apolitical.
FIR quashed
Allowing the petition, the court quashed the FIR against Malviya and closed the connected petition.
