Madras High Court Stays Case Against BJP's K Annamalai Over Alleged Provocative Speech

Justice M Nirmal Kumar admitted a quash petition filed by K Annamalai and adjourned the case. Meanwhile, the court stayed the proceedings against him.

Annamalai had approached the court seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Salem. The case was registered based on a complaint filed by Piyush, from Salem, under Section 190 and 200 of the CrPC.

In his complaint, Piyush alleged that Annamalai, during a press meet, had attributed certain statements to late Muthuramalinga Thevar. It was alleged that Annamalai had stated that Thevar, in one of his speeches in 1956 had said that “If non-believers speak of believer's faith, Madurai Meenakshi, who receives milk abhishekam, shall receive blood abhishekam.” Piyush had alleged that Thevar had never spoken such words and even if the reiteration was authentic, it would constitute a threatening and provocative act.

Based on Piyush's complaint, the Magistrate took cognisance against Annamalai for offences under Sections 153A and 505(1)(c) of the IPC [Section 196 and 353(1)(c) of the BNS] and issued summons to Annamalai. Challenging this, Annamalai has filed the present plea.

When the plea was taken up on Monday, Senior Advocate Paul Kanagaraj, appearing for Annamalai said that the Magistrate's order was against law, as Annamalai was not heard before taking cognisance. He argued that as per Section 223 BNSS, a Magistrate should afford an opportunity to the accused before taking cognisance, which was not done in the present case.

It was also submitted that no affidavit had been filed along with the complaint and the only affidavit that was filed was for appointing an Advocate Commissioner. Kanagaraj stressed that as per law, the private complaint had to be filed in the form of an affidavit, but in the present case it was filed in the form a petition.

In his plea, Annamalai argued that the complaint was an abuse of process of law and filed for deriving political mileage. It was argued that the complaint was defective and legally unsustainable. It was argued that the complaint, even if taken at face value, did not disclose any offence. He accused the complainant of embellishing his speech with imaginative distortions for fabricating the cause of action and for criminalising a mere riposte to the ruling party's inflammatory remarks equating Sanatana Dharma with diseases.

Annamalai also alleged that the de facto complainant was an ardent supporter of the ruling DMK, and the timing and content of the complaint showed patent political vendetta. He thus argued that such political motivation vitiates the proceedings as a malafide abuse of process.

Further, Annamalai also stated that there was nothing to show that his speech was delivered with the intention of promoting enmity or hatred between communities or was likely to disturb the public tranquility and he had merely referred to a historical incident, which does not involve any incitement, threat or tendency to promote enmity.

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Paul Kanagaraj

Counsel for Respondent: Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: K Annamalai v V Piyush

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 170

Case No: Crl OP 9798 of 2026