Madurai: In a significant and politically charged judgment, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against BJP leader Amit Malviya, while making strong observations that the remarks made by Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin on Sanatana Dharma amounted to “hate speech.” The court held that Malviya’s social media post questioning the Minister’s remarks did not attract any penal provisions and that continuation of the criminal proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Justice S. Srimathy, who delivered the order, examined in detail the controversial speech made by Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin at a conference organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association in Chennai in September 2023. During the event, the Minister had said that Sanatana Dharma should not merely be opposed but must be “eliminated,” drawing a comparison with diseases such as dengue, malaria, and coronavirus.
The FIR against Mr. Malviya was registered in 2023 by the Tiruchi city police following a complaint by K.A.V. Dinakaran, an organiser of the DMK advocates wing, Tiruchi South district. The complaint alleged that the BJP leader had distorted and misrepresented the Minister’s speech through a post on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), with the intention of promoting enmity between different sections of society.
However, the High Court rejected this contention, holding that Mr. Malviya’s post was a reaction to, and a critique of, the Minister’s own words and did not constitute hate speech.
Interpretation of ‘Sanatana Ozhippu’
A key aspect of the court’s reasoning revolved around the interpretation of the Tamil word “ozhippu,” used by Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin in his speech. Justice Srimathy observed that the Minister did not use the word “ethirppu” (opposition) but “ozhippu,” which translates to eradication or elimination.
“To consider the issue at hand, the alleged speech of the Minister ought to be seen,” the judge said. “He stated that Sanatana Dharma should not be resisted or opposed, but has to be abolished or eradicated. In Tamil, it is not stated as Sanatana ethirppu, but Sanatana ozhippu.”
The court held that the word “abolish” or “eradicate” implied that something existing should not continue to exist. Applying this reasoning, Justice Srimathy observed that if Sanatana Dharma were to be eradicated, it logically followed that the people who follow it should also not exist.
“If a group of people following Sanatana Dharma should not be there, then the appropriate word is ‘genocide’,” the judge stated. She further observed that if Sanatana Dharma is treated as a religion, the call would amount to “religicide,” and could also extend to culturicide, involving the destruction of culture and traditions.
In this context, the court ruled that the Tamil phrase “Sanatana ozhippu” could clearly be interpreted as a call for genocide or culturicide, and therefore, the speech itself attracted the elements of hate speech.
Malviya’s Post Not Hate Speech
Justice Srimathy emphasised that when a hate speech is allegedly uttered by a public functionary, a person opposing or questioning that speech cannot automatically be accused of committing a crime.
Mr. Malviya had posted on X that the Minister had compared Sanatana Dharma to malaria and dengue and called for its eradication, which, according to him, amounted to a call for genocide of nearly 80% of India’s population who follow Sanatana Dharma.
The court noted that the BJP leader had not called for any agitation or violence against the Minister or his party. Instead, his post was framed as a question seeking clarification on whether the Minister intended to imply genocide of Sanatana followers.
“The petitioner’s post is in the form of a question and seeking a reply,” the judge said. “The same would not attract the ingredients of any sections of the penal code.”
The court added that Mr. Malviya had merely extracted statements already available in the public domain and expressed his understanding of them. As such, his post could not be construed as intentionally fomenting hatred or animosity.
DMK and DK’s Longstanding Opposition to Sanatana Dharma and Hinduism Noted by Court
Justice Srimathy also took note of the broader political and ideological context surrounding the case. She observed that the party to which Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin belongs, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), and its ideological predecessor, the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK), have historically made repeated statements against Sanatana Dharma and Hinduism.
“It is evident that there is a clear attack on Hinduism by the Dravidar Kazhagam and subsequently along with the DMK, for the past 100 years,” the judge observed. In light of this history, the court held that the overall circumstances leading to the present case ought to be taken into consideration while assessing Mr. Malviya’s reaction.
The court further noted that the petitioner, being a follower of Sanatana Dharma, could be considered a victim of the alleged hate speech and that his response amounted to a defence of his faith rather than an attempt to incite hatred.
HC’s Concern Over Selective Prosecution
In a strongly worded observation, Justice Srimathy expressed concern over what she described as a troubling trend in the enforcement of hate speech laws.
“With pain,” the court recorded that those who initiate hate speech are often let off without action, while those who react to such speech face legal consequences. The judge pointed out that in the present case, no FIR had been registered against the Minister in Tamil Nadu for his remarks, though cases had reportedly been filed in other States.
“The courts are also questioning the persons who reacted, but are not putting the law on motion against the person who initiated the hate speech,” the judge remarked.
FIR Quashed
Concluding that the continuation of criminal proceedings against Mr. Malviya would cause irreparable harm and injury, the court held that allowing the case to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the FIR registered by the Tiruchi city police was quashed.
