Madras High Court Rejects NTK Chief Seeman's Plea To Club All FIRs Over His Alleged Comments On Periyar, Says Plea Seeks Omnibus Relief

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea after observing that the plea sought an omnibus relief without mentioning the details of the FIRs registered against Seeman, without impleading the police stations where the FIRs were registered, and without impleading the complainants. Wondering how the registry even numbered the petition without the details, the court dismissed the plea.

“You're asking for an omnibus relief. How was this even numbered by the registry? On perusal of the petition, it is seen that the without even knowing the contents of the FIR and without adding the police stations and without adding the complainants, the petition has been filed seeking omnibus relief. Therefore, this omnibus prayer cannot be considered for any relief,” the court remarked orally.

In his plea, Seeman submitted that around 50 FIRs had been registered against him for a speech delivered by him on January 8, 2025 at Vadalur, Cuddalore District relating to Periyar. It was submitted that since the members of a particular political outfit did not like the remarks made by Seeman, they preferred complaints against him in various police stations.

Seeman further submitted that when he had received the notices under Section 35(3)(5) of the BNSS, he had enquired the details of the exact allegations with the police official, who refused to divulge the information. He thus argued that the nature of allegations was not communicated to him under Section 35 (3)(5) of the BNSS thus violating his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Regarding the speech, it was submitted that he had not made any disparaging remarks against the leader and had merely recalled speeches and writings made by other political leaders in the public meeting. He thus pointed out that merely reproducing the speeches and writings of another person does not amount to imputation. He submitted that when there was no incitement or instigation made in the speech, it could not be termed as creating disharmony.

Seeman further submitted that on perusal of the speech made by him, it could be understood that he had merely expressed a view different from that of the political leader and there were no ingredients to attract the offenses under Sections 192, 196(1)(a), 352, 353(1)(c), and 353(2) of the BNSS. He thus contended that the registration of multiple FIRs was an abuse of the process of law with the help of ruling dispensation.

Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Arnab Goswami's case, Seeman called for clubbing the FIRs to prevent double jeopardy as provided under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.

Case Title: Seeman v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 110

Case No: WP 9367 of 2025