The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against BJP leader Amit Malviya for allegedly distorting the comments made by Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin on "Sanatana Dharma", wondering why those initiating "hate speech" were allowed to go scot-free while those reacting to it had to face the law.
Allowing a criminal original petition filed by Malviya, the BJP's IT Cell chief, seeking to quash the first information report, Justice S Srimathy said continuation of the case would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, the impugned FIR filed by Tiruchirappalli city police is quashed.
The judge said the comments of Udhayanidhi were tantamount to hate speech and held that questioning it was a reaction.
The case centres on remarks by Stalin in 2023, calling for "eradication" of Sanatana Dharma, equating it with diseases like malaria and dengue, to which Malviya reacted strongly, saying it was like calling for a "genocide" of the 80 per cent of population that followed Sanatana Dharma.
The court was of the view that Malviya's remarks didn't "distort" the DMK minister's comments, which amounted to hate speech.
If the present proceedings continued the petitioner would suffer irreparable harm and injury and the court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to quash the FIR.
"This court with pain, records the prevailing situation that the person who initiates the hate speech are let scot-free, but the persons who reacted for the hate speech are facing the wrath of the law. The courts are also questioning the persons who reacted, but are not putting the law in 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 the state, but some cases have been filed in other states," the judgement read.
The court, referring to the respondent stating that renowned personalities including Mahatma Gandhi, and late CM K Kamaraj had opined against Sanatana Dharma, said they only wanted some unwanted practices to be dropped. Except EV Ramasamy alias Periyar, none of such leaders had spoken against Sanatana Dharma.
"Hence the counter has stated incorrect information." The FIR was filed following a complaint by a Tiruchirappalli based DMK office-bearer, KAV Thinakaran.
The DMK functioanry alleged in his complaint that the petitioner distorted the speech of Udhayanidhi Stalin made on September 2, 2023 at the Sanatan Eradication Conference held by TN Progressive Writers-Aritists Association in Chennai and posted it on social media.
The BJP leader had alleged that Udhayanidhi called for the genocide of 80 per cent of the population of Bharat who follow Sanatana Dharma. The minister clarified through a social media post that he never "called for genocide." The petitioner intentionally misrepresented the deputy CM to foment animosity among various segments of society.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations in the FIR would clearly show that it is a reaction to the speech made by the minister against the Sanatana Dharma and Sanatanis, and hence no offence would be attracted.
The BJP leader submitted that the allegations against him are false and absurd and politically motivated and therefore, the the FIR must be quashed.
While the DMK functionary failed to appear either in person or through counsel, the police filed a detailed counter petition which said Udhayanidhi had stated that the word Sanatana was derived from Sanskrit. It is against equality and social justice and it has to be changed. The Dravidian outfits and Communist parties are questioning the ideology.
The counsel for the police said the minister had said that mosquitos, dengue, and coronavirus cannot be resisted but must be eradicated.
Likewise, he had said that Sanatana Dharma should not be resisted or opposed but it has to be eradicated. However, the minister had not stated or called for genocide of 80 per cent population.
Justice Srimathy said the counter filed by the police asking why Udhayanidhi cannot speak about Sanatana when the Governor and BJP can speak about it, indicated political colour. "The officials ought to be apolitical and taking sides with political party is reprimandable." It is evident that there is clear attack on Hinduism by the Dravida Kazhagam and subsequently by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, to which the minister belongs to, for the past 100 years. While considering the overall circumstances, it is seen the petitioner had questioned the hidden meaning of the minister's speech.
By overall consideration, the speech of the minister would clearly indicate it is totally against 80 per cent Hindus, which comes within the mischief of hate speech.
"The minister hails from the above legacy." The petitioner who is a sanatani is a victim of such hate speech and has only defended the Sanatana Dharma. It is evident that the reply post of the petitioner would not attract any of the provisions of the IPC. Rather, the minister's speech would attract the above provisions.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
