When Madras HC refuses relief to Tamil Nadu BJP chief Annamalai

The Madras High Court, while refusing to quash the criminal case against Tamil Nadu Bharatiya Janata Party chief K Annamalai for his alleged remarks against a Christian missionary NGO, had a scathing comment on the matter this week.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh, while highlighting the paraphrase of the statements made by Annamalai in an interview on YouTube channel ‘Pesu Thamizha Pesu’, said, “Prima facie, these statements reveal the divisive intentions of the petitioner as if the Christian NGOs are taking action against Hindu culture. action.”

Justice Venkatesh also stressed that Annamalai, a former senior IPS officer who should know the laws of the country, “…has no doubt that he was trying to portray an orchestrated attempt by an internationally funded Christian missionary NGO to destroy him.” Hindu culture. It also aroused public passions…so the public believed that the Christians were out to destroy the Hindus. “

The judge remarked that “a petition filed in the interests of the environment suddenly became a tool for causing communal tension”.

Annamalai moved the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings filed against Salem-based environmental activist V Piyush on a complaint filed against him under Sections 153A and 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code.

In his complaint, Piyush alleged that Annamalai made false statements during an interview on October 22, 2022, two days before Diwali that year, that it was the Christian missionary NGO that first approached the Supreme Court seeking ban. About firecrackers during festivals.

V Piyush said that the first case filed against firecrackers in the Supreme Court was actually the minor son of a senior lawyer. He therefore claimed that Annamalai’s false statement was deliberately intended to incite collective hatred against Christians.

Seeking relief, Annamalai’s lawyers argued in the High Court that his remarks could not be construed as hate speech. He thought it could be considered, at best, a cry of pain.

The lawyer claimed that although the complaint against Annamalai was made 400 days after the interview, it did not cause any negative impact or disturbance to the social harmony at that time.

However, Justice Venkatesh dismissed this argument and while referring to the Supreme Court judgment in the Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan case, said, “The Supreme Court has made it clear that every instance of such hate speech does not necessarily lead to immediate violence or infringement on public order. disturb”.

He emphasized: “The Supreme Court has warned that such speech can be like a time bomb waiting to explode at the right time, causing violence and, in the most extreme cases, even genocide.”

He added that “these observations are even more relevant in this age of social media” and that “this case is yet another reminder that those with power and influence have a wider impact and impact on citizens through their words and actions.” nation”.

Therefore, while holding that “the immaterial effect of the statement made would also fall within the ambit of Section 153A of the IPC” and that “Section 153A and Section 505 of the IPC are similar to each other”, Justice Venkatesh held that “a prima facie case was made against Annamalai .

The bench, however, clarified: “The observations made in the order do not prevent the petitioner from raising all the grounds before the lower court which will consider them on merits and in accordance with law.”