CHENNAI: Coming down heavily on the Tamil Nadu police for closing all the 124 complaints, at the preliminary stage itself, filed against former minister and senior DMK leader K Ponmudy for his alleged hate speech against women and Saivite and Vaishnavite denominations, the Madras High Court on Tuesday said the court cannot remain a mute spectator if politicians cross the limits.
Hearing a suo motu case initiated against Ponmudy, Justice P Velmurugan said the contempt case would be kept open and he would “vigilantly watch” what the police was going to do on the matter.
“Where do you derive the powers to close these complaints after preliminary inquiry? If you think you have the right to close the complaints, the court has the rights to proceed on them,” the judge said, responding to Advocate General PS Raman’s submission that the complaints were closed after preliminary investigation under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The AG also said BNSS allows the complainants to make appeals with the Inspector General (IG) concerned and the DGP. The investigating officers have found that the former minister had only spoken what was said 60 years ago and such speech would not fall under hate speech, the AG said.
The judge said it is not up to the police to write judgment on complaints, and what they instead have to do is to collect the materials, peruse them, and register the case and filed charge sheet.
It is up to the jurisdictional courts to decide on the matter. They cannot club preliminary inquiry and investigations; both are different, the judge said.
He asked the AG whether closure notice was issued to all the complainants, and said the court would take it seriously if the notice is not served to anyone.
Justice Velmurugan stressed that it is the right time to rein in the politicians. “Politicians think that freedom of speech under Article 19 is an absolute right. And they think only the sky is the limit,” he said.
“There are 46 crore people living in this country. Everyone picking up the mic must understand it. A strong message should go out. Otherwise we won’t be able to stop it,” the judge said. He adjourned the case to August 1 for further hearing.
