'Prima Facie Hate Speech': Madras HC Initiates Suo Motu Proceedings Against Minister Ponmudi For Comments On Saivism, Vaishnavism & Women

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (April 23) initiated suo motu proceedings against Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudi for his recent remarks on Vaishnavism and Saivism. 

Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the Registry to initiate suo motu writ proceedings against the Minister and place the matter before the Chief Justice for further actions. The court opined that the speech made by the Minister prima facie appeared to be hate speech. 

"Prima facie, the act of the Minister, appears to constitute hate speech and attract the ingredients of the offence under 79, 196 (1)(a), 296(a), 299, and 302 of BNS 2023," the judge said. 

BNS Section 79 pertains to Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman. Section 296(a) states that whoever, to the annoyance of others does any obscene act in any public place shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 302 pertains to uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of any person.

Section 196(1)(a) states that whoever by words–spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with 3 year imprisonment or fine or both.

The court also said that the statements made by the Minister were derogatory to women and wounds the religious feelings of Vaishnavites and Saivites- the two main sects of Hinduism in the State. 

"These comments, on the face of it, are completely derogatory of women, and deliberately spews venom on the two main sects of Hinduism - Vaishnavism and Saivism. Apart from being obscene, the speech also wounds the religious feelings of the Vaishnavites and saivites," the court said. 

The court also criticised the state police for remaining"motionless" and not taking any action against the Minister even after the previous order of the court. The court said that it was its duty to ensure that the State police follows the orders of the Supreme Court regarding hate speech. The court also underlined that there would be zero tolerance to hate speech. 

"This court pointed that the Minister had admitted to making the statement and was removed from the post. Still, the police authority, tasked with tackling hate speech, remained motionless..The continued inaction is most distressing.As a constitutional court, this court is under obligation to ensure that TN police follows direction of SC (reg hate speech). In matters concerning hate speech, there is zero tolerance," the court said. 

On April 17th, the court had asked the State Government to register an FIR against Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudi for his remarks in connection with Saivism and Vaishnavism. The court had warned the State that if no FIR was registered against Ponmudi, the court would initiate a suo motu action. 

The judge had also said that a message should be sent so that in the future, people would not venture to make such spurious statements. The court emphasised that people holding such a position, and such statute, should not be making such comments. The court added that people should not get the impression that merely because someone belongs to a particular political party, they could say anything. 

The court also remarked that when the government was taking serious actions against others for making hate speech, the same should be done when someone from their own party was making such comments.

Today, Senior Advocate P Wilson (appearing for the TN Police) submitted that preliminary enquiry had been conducted on two complaints filed against the Minister and the complaints were closed on finding that no prima facie case had been made out. Wilson also informed the court that two cases had been disposed of by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court noting the same. 

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh (appearing for Ponmudi) argued that the speech was made in a closed meeting and only a truncated version of the speech was made public. He also pointed out that Ponmudi had been stating something that had happened around 40 years ago and no case was made out.

The court recorded the submissions, but continued to note that Ponmudi's speech was derogatory and ordered accordingly.