Madras High Court Asks State To Register FIR Against Minister K Ponmudi For Comments On Saivism, Vaishnavism And Women
The Madras High Court has asked the Tamil Nadu government to register an FIR against Minister for Forests K Ponmudi for his recent remarks in connection with Saivism and Vaishnavism. Justice Anand Venkatesh warned the State that it would take suo motu action against the Minister if the State was not willing to register the FIR. "If they don't, then I'll initiate suo motu," the judge told...
The Madras High Court has asked the Tamil Nadu government to register an FIR against Minister for Forests K Ponmudi for his recent remarks in connection with Saivism and Vaishnavism.
Justice Anand Venkatesh warned the State that it would take suo motu action against the Minister if the State was not willing to register the FIR.
"If they don't, then I'll initiate suo motu," the judge told Advocate General PS Raman on Thursday.
While taking up the suo motu revision against the acquittal of the Minister in a disproportionate asset case post lunch on Thursday, the court had asked the Advocate General to get instructions from the Director General of Police on what criminal actions had been taken against Ponmudi by the police authorities. The judge asked the AG to reply by 4:45 pm.
In the evening, when the matter was called again, the court sternly said that it needed answers. The court also asked the AG not to file multiple FIRs against Ponmudi for the same offence but said that one FIR could be registered based on the complaint received till now. The court also said that the matter did not require much enquiry as the person who made the comments, Ponmudi, had already accepted the statement made. The court also suggested that the comment did not seem to be made in the spur of the moment and Ponmudi seemed to have made the speech with full consciousness. The judge also remarked that the entire issue could not be brushed aside by mere public apology.
"I must get an answer on what is going to happen on the complaint. The material is already available. The issue does not require enquiry because the person who made the comment is accepting the comment. The damaging content is still there. It cannot just go on and on. We don't know when it'll flare up. This is a cognisance taken by the court. The moment I enter into this, it'll get a different colour, which I don't want to happen," the judge said.
The judge also said that a message should be sent so that in future, people would not venture to make such spurious statements. The court emphasised that people holding such position, and such statute should not be making such comments. The court added that people should not get an impression that merely because someone belongs to a particular political party, they could say anything.
"Someone should hesitate in the future. People shouldn't think that when I belong to some other party or some other opposition party, I will be held. But if I belong to the ruling party, I can talk anything. That impression should never be given. Law is for everybody," the court said.
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.
"When the government takes seriously about the hate speech made by others, the same should be done when a person who is part of the government makes it. And its not some ordinary thing which he has uttered. We've all heard it," the court said.
The court has thus given the State time till April 23rd to inform it about registration of FIR against Ponmudi.
It may also be noted that a lawyer has also approached the Madras High Court to remove and disqualify Ponmudi from his ministerial post for making the alleged derogatory statements. The plea states that Ponmudi, being a constitutional authority, had a duty to conduct themselves in public and are bound by constitutional values and principles. It further says that the constitution does not provide for hate speech in the guise of secularism and freedom of speech. This petition is yet to be heard by the High Court.