Use Of Expression 'Hindu Terrorism' In Speech Calling For Unity Not Offence Of Provocation In Absence Of Any Act: Madras High Court

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus quashed a criminal case registered against a man for allegedly making provocative speech during a public meeting.

The court noted that the speech was made in 2017 and no useful purpose would be served by conducting the trial and continuing the investigation. The court noted that the man had only used the inappropriate word of “Hindu Terrorism” and there was no intention to divide people on communal lines.

“In this case, aforesaid speech ends with an appeal that the people should be united and therefore, it cannot be said that the intention of the speaker was to divide the people on communal lines. He has only used the inappropriate word of Hindu terrorism and the same alone, will not amount to an offence under Sections 153 & 153(1) or the other offences in this regard. When the allegation is only a mere speech and is not accompanied by any other act on the part of the petitioner, the offences are not made out,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea filed by S Kumaradevan, a resident of Chennai, seeking to quash a case registered against him by the Pulianthope Police. The prosecution case was that on December 19, 2016, Kumaradevan had attended a public meeting organised by other accused on behalf of the National League Party. During the meeting, the petitioner, who is an advocate and a member of the Dravidar Kazhagam organisation, had called for opposing Hindu Terrorism and to eliminate the act that divides the people.

A case was registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 153, 153A 1 (a) & (b), 504, 505 (1)(b)(c), and 505(2) of the IPC read with Section 2(o) and 13 (1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.

The court took note of the precedent laid down by the High Court, holding that to attract offences as alleged, the current social milieu has to be considered while deciding whether the petitioner could have committed any offence or not.

In the present case, the court noted that the speech ended with an appeal that people should be united, which could not be said to be with an intention to divide people. The court also noted that the case was pending since 2017 and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

Thus, the court was inclined to allow the plea and quash the case registered by the police.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Sankar for Mr. M. Prithiv Kannan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. Rajasekaran Government Counsel (Crl. Side)

Case Title: S Kumaradevan v The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 342

Case No: CRL OP No. 29214 of 2018