MADURAI: Quashing a criminal case registered against BJP IT wing leader Amit Malviya over his social media post criticising Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks on eradicating Sanatana Dharma, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday observed that the minister’s comments amounted to hate speech. The FIR was filed after Malviya described Udhayanidhi’s 2023 remarks as a call for genocide.
Allowing Malviya’s petition to quash the case, Justice S Srimathy said there had been a sustained attack on Hinduism by the Dravida Kazhagam, later joined by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, for the past 100 years, and that the minister’s speech was against Hindus who follow Sanatana Dharma.
“The minister’s remarks amount to hate speech,” the judge said.
The court was hearing a plea challenging the FIR lodged by Tiruchy police. Justice Srimathy said the court was pained by the prevailing situation.
"The courts are questioning the persons who reacted, but are not putting the law on motion against the person who initiated the hate speech. In the present case, no case has been filed against the minister for his hate speech in TN, but some cases are filed in other states," she said.
Referring to submissions by Malviya’s counsel that the minister’s party had repeatedly spoken against Sanatana Dharma, the judge cited the actions and speeches of Periyar EV Ramasami and said, "There is clear attack on Hinduism by the Dravida Kazhagam, and subsequently along with by the DMK, for the past 100 years, to which the minister belongs. While considering the overall circumstances, it is seen the petitioner had questioned the hidden meaning of the minister’s speech."
"The speech of the minister would clearly indicate that it is totally against 80% Hindus, which come within the mischief of hate speech. The petitioner who is a sanathani is a victim of such hate speech and has only defended the Sanatana Dharma from hate speech," the judge said.
She also referred to a March 2024 order of the Madras High Court on a writ petition seeking a quo warranto against the minister, noting that the court had held the remarks to be ‘hate speech’.
"When a hate speech is uttered by the minister, the petitioner’s (act of) opposing the said hate speech cannot be considered as a crime," she said, adding that Malviya had not called for any agitation against the minister or his party.
The judge noted that the central word in the minister’s speech, delivered at the 'Sanathan Abolition Conference' organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association on September 2, 2023, was ‘Ozhippu’, meaning ‘abolish’.
Extracting its synonyms, she said, "The word ‘abolish’ would indicate that some existing thing should not be there. If it is applied to the present case, if Sanatana Dharma should not be there, then the people following Sanatana Dharma should not be there. It means suppression of activities that do not conform to the destroyer’s notion."
Therefore, the Tamil phrase ‘Sanatana Ozhippu’ would clearly mean genocide or culturicide, the judge said, holding that Malviya’s post questioning the speech did not amount to hate speech.
She also reprimanded the police inspector concerned for a statement in the counter affidavit which said, “The Governor and BJP can speak about Sanathan then why cannot the Minister speak about Sanathan?”
The judge said, "The above would clearly indicate the counter has political colour but unfortunately it is filed by the investigating officer. The officials ought to be apolitical and taking sides with a political party is reprimandable."
Malviya was booked by the Tiruchy City Crime Branch under Sections 153, 153(A), 504 and 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, based on a complaint by the district organiser of the Tiruchy DMK advocate wing, KAV Thinakaran, who alleged that Malviya had misrepresented the minister’s speech to foment animosity among different sections of society.
Malviya denied the allegations, stating in his petition that he had merely reproduced the minister’s speech, which was already in the public domain, and expressed his understanding of it by questioning its object and purpose.