Publication Of Call For Separate Tamil Nadu Nation Not Sedition; Public Will Doubt Speaker's Mental Health: Supreme Court

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that India is unified by heart and soul, and such statements could at best cause annoyance in the present social milieu, and the person making such a statement would only be seen as a person having mental health issues. The court added that such a sentence, in the present day, would not excite any hatred among the public.

“But in today's scenario, India as a nation, is unified by heart and soul. If any person speaks about dividing Tamilnadu into a separate nation, the person will certainly be referred to as having mental health issues and it will not excite any hatred at all among the common public. At best, it will cause annoyance and therefore, in the present social milieu, the mere publication of that sentence cannot be considered as inciting hatred against the nation or the Government of India,” the court observed.

The court was dealing with a petition filed by two individuals – Keera @ Moorthi and Thamil Bala- to quash the case pending against them before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Chennai. As per the prosecution, the petitioners were running a publishing house which had released a book dealing with the life of Tamizharasan.

It was alleged that the book had mentioned that in 10967, Tamizharasan had proclaimed that the State of Tamil Nadu should be a separate nation, and in order to divide and secede, guerrilla warfare should be adopted. Holding that the statement would amount to sedition, the case was registered.

The petitioners argued that in a similar case, a division bench of the High Court had held that the rigors of Section 124 (A) of the IPC were not in tune with the current social milieu and had quashed a chargesheet. The petitioners prayed that the same yardstick should be applied to the present case also.

The state, however, opposed the plea and argued that the statement would amount to sedition and that the chargesheet had been laid.

The court noted that the Supreme Court has held that in cases of sedition, the acts should be considered in light of the current social milieu and the times we are living. The court further observed that though statements like the one in the present case would have incited hatred or contempt to Government at the time when it was made in 1967, in the present scenario, it would not amount to sedition.

Thus, the court was of the opinion that the petitioners were entitled to succeed and thus allowed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. Pugalenthi

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Case Title: Keera @ Moorthi and Another v The State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 297

Case No: CRL OP No. 16226 of 2026