Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against TVK's Aadhav Arjuna Over Social Media Post Allegedly Inciting Violence

The Madras High Court has quashed the FIR registered against Aadhav Arjuna, General Secretary of Election Campaign Movement of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party for his social media posts allegedly inciting violence.

Justice AD Jagadish Chandira observed that Arjuna's tweet did not target any groups, and though it spoke about violence, it did not call for violence or hatred. The court observed that the tweets, though politically provocative and critical of police excess, did not cross any Lakshman Rekha, to fall under hate speech. 

"Further, the tweet is only a political opinion and criticism and it does not promote hatred or enmity. Though it may be politically provocative and critical of police excess during the relevant time, it does not cross the Lakshman rekha so as to fall under the category of hate speech, since it does not incite violence or enmity or does not vilify any community, but, merely expresses dissatisfaction and warns of possible youth-led protests," the court observed.

The court added that the tweet's essence was a political expression, which was a fundamental right protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Arjuna has been accused of inciting violence through his social media post and for allegedly calling for a revolution similar to that initiated by Gen Z in Nepal and Srilanka, in the State. Following this, an FIR was registered against Arjuna for offences under Sections 192 [wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot], 196(1)(b) [promoting enmity between different groups], 197(1)(d) ]imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integrity], 353(1)(b), and 353 (2) [statements conducing to public mischief] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita BNS 2023.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Arjuna, argued that there was no mens rea in the present case, which was evident from the fact that the post, which was made at 11:30 pm on September 28, was deleted within 34 minutes before building any viewership. He had thus argued that Arjuna did not have any intention to create incendiary. He had also argued that the tweets were protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.

Singhvi also challenged the filing of the FIR through an LIC agent, statedly a ruse by the State. He argued that the complaint was filed after 18 hours, at 6:00 pm, and the FIR was registered within 6:10 pm. He thus argued that the FIR was a mere reproduction of the complaint.

Singhvi further argued that the post made by Arjuna had nothing to do with hate speech and was only intended to show anger, dissent against the government running the regime, which allowed such things (Karur stampede and attack on his party workers) to happen. He argued that the post, as well as its deletion, would come within the purview of Article 19(1)(a).

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Elango, appearing for the State argued that though the first part of the post might be covered under Article 19 of the Constitution, the second part wanted to call for violence similar to that in Nepal and Sri Lanka, for toppling the government. He thus argued that the post would come under the purview of Article 19(2) wherein restriction could be imposed for protecting public order and incitement of violence.

With respect to mens rea, Elango argued that the same had to be determined at the time of trial. He pointed out that if the court was to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the case on a submission that there was no mens rea, any person accused under Section 304 IPC for culpable homicide could come to the court and say that they did not have any intention.

Elango also argued that the court had to consider who had made the comments and in which context it was made. He argued that in the present case, Arjuna was a political person and the comments were made in the aftermath of a stampede, when everyone was in shock and grieving. He further argued that every right and indulgence had a limit.

Counsel for Petitioners: Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for Gohil Agarwal Law Chamber, Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal, Yash S Vijay, Pranav Gopalakrishnan, Adv Rupali Samuel

Counsel for respondents: Senior Advocate NR Elango, assisted by Additional Public Prosecutor E Raj Tilak

Case Title: Aadhav Arjuna v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 433

Case No: Crl OP 28737 of 2025