CHENNAI: Reckless social media allegations against newly inducted ministers could affect their functioning and would be against the public interest, the Madras High Court observed, while quashing an FIR against social media user Vinoth Suriya Kumar over posts alleging HR&CE Minister S Ramesh’s involvement in the controversial registration of Palani temple land.
The court also directed Vinoth to file an affidavit acknowledging that the allegations regarding the minister’s relative was incorrect, seeking an apology and an undertaking to verify facts before making similar posts in the future.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing Vinoth’s petition to quash an FIR registered by the Cyber Cell, Central Crime Branch, based on a complaint by the minister’s junior personal assistant. The complaint alleged that Vinoth was deliberately spreading false information through social media and attempting to disturb public order.
The court noted that the land dispute has been going on even before the present government took over. A private person, claiming to be a trustee, had secured a court order for registration of the land, but it was set aside in an appeal. The judge also pointed out that Minister Ramesh was not in the picture when the sale deed was presented, registration was refused, or the order directing registration was obtained. Vinoth had also linked the minister and his relatives to the deal. However, he could provide no basis for the allegation, and his counsel conceded that the post had been made without verifying the facts, the order noted.
Interestingly, Vinoth’s counsel had relied on the Madras HC’s November 2025 judgment in a case related to Minister Aadhav Arjuna, in which an FIR over a social media post following the Karur stampede was quashed.
The judge held that the posts in the present case did not attract the offences invoked, as there was no evidence that they were intended to provoke rioting, cause fear or alarm, or promote enmity between groups. The judge said political criticism ordinarily enjoys protection under the right to freedom of speech and expression, but observed that the posts contained prima facie defamatory imputations against the minister. He left it open to the minister to initiate civil or criminal defamation proceedings.
