Madras High Court Reserves Order On Former Minister Ponmudi's Plea Against Magistrate Taking Cognisance Of Hate Speech Complaint

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan reserved orders after hearing Ponmudi and Anandan.

The case concerns the comments made by Ponmudi against Saivism, Vaishnavism, and women. It may be noted that on April 17th, 2025, the High Court had asked the State Government to register an FIR against Ponmudi. When no FIR was registered, the court initiated suo motu proceedings, noting that Ponmudi's speech prima facie amounted to hate speech.

The court noted that there were ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 79, 196 (1)(a), 296(a), 299, and 302 of BNS 2023 and directed the Registry to initiate a suo motu case against the former Minister.

Later, the court closed the suo motu proceeding when the State informed that all the complaints had been duly investigated and closed since there was no material. While closing the suo motu case, the court gave liberty to the complainants to approach the concerned jurisdictional magistrates against the closure of complaints.

BJP's Uma Anandan later filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate under Sections 196 (1)(a) [promoting enmity between different groups], Section 299 [Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class], and Section 300 [disturbing religious assembly] of the BNS. The Magistrate's court took cognisance of the complaint and issued summons after noting that there was a prima facie case and the objections raised by Ponmudi were a matter of trial.

The court had previously stayed the proceedings before the Magistrate and had dispensed with Ponmudi's appearance before the court.

When the matter came up for hearing today, Uma Anandan's side vehemently opposed the plea. It was argued that the speech made by Ponmudi was to propagate the atheist ideology and an attempt to create hate against the Hindu religion in the eyes of other religions.

“It has travelled through electronic media. Words used by Ponmudi shows that it was made to propagate atheist ideology. They want to create hate against Hindu religion in eyes of other religion or atheist group,” it was argued.

It was also argued that while making the speech, Ponmudi was a sitting Minister whose words would be followed by the people. It was argued that persons of such stature in society should be careful of their statements. It was also argued that while Ponmudi could criticise religion, the same could not be done in a manner against law.

It was also argued that the statements made by Ponmudi were unwarranted to the event, which showed that the same were made intentionally. It was argued that the intention of the speech was to hurt the people who follow Hindu religion and to cause them psychological harm.

It was also argued that the grounds raised by Ponmudi, with respect to the validity of sanction to prosecute against him and the ingredients necessary for bringing home the alleged sections, were matters to be looked into at the time of trial and could not be gone into in the present case.

Case Title: K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan

Case No: Crl RC 645 of 2026