Chennai Court Acquits Former Minister K Ponmudi In Hate Speech Case For Comments On Saivism, Vaishnavism & Women

Judge C Sundarapandian noted that the complainant, BJP's Uma Anandan, had deposed that she wanted to withdraw the case, as Ponmudi had publicly apologised for his speech and expressed regret.

The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against Ponmudi beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence on record was insufficient to hold him guilty.

“The Complainant has deposed that she withdraw the Complaint since, Accused apologizes for what he said about Saivism and Vaishnavism and that he will not speak thus in future. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case with respect to offences under Sections U/s. 196 (1) (a), 299 and 302 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against Accused beyond reasonable doubts for the offences stated supra. Therefore, the evidence on the record would not sufficient to hold guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with respect to offences stated supra,” the court said.

Considering the same, the court opined that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the case pending and acquitted Ponmudi.

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.

Later, the court closed the suo motu proceedings when the State informed the court 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.

When Ponmudi failed to appear before the court despite notice, the court had also issued a non-bailable warrant. However, the warrant was recalled after Ponmudi appeared before the court