Chennai Court Issues Non-Bailable Warrant Against Former Minister Ponmudi In Hate Speech Case

Judge C Sundarapandian has issued the non-bailable warrant, while rejecting an application filed by Ponmudi seeking to condone his absence in court on August 6^th.

The court noted that a plea filed by Ponmudi challenging the order of the Magistrate taking cognisance of the offence had been dismissed by the High Court in July this year, and trial court was directed to complete the trial within a period of 6 months. Thus, the judge opined that Ponmudi's absence would hinder the proceedings.

The court also noted that though Ponmudi had sought condonation of absence on the grounds of illness, no medical records had been produced to evidence the same. The court was thus not inclined to accept the condonation application and issued a non-bailable warrant.

“In view of, serious objections from Complainant, and in view Direction of Honourable High Court to complete the Trial, within a period of six months, since the Absence of Accused hinder proceedings of this Case, the Petition under Section 355 of BNSS filed by Learned Counsel for Accused, citing reason for absence that illness without adducing any Medical Records for immobilization of Accused, hence, the same is dismissed. Issue Non Bailable Warrant against Accused. For process in 3 days. Call on 02.09.2026,” the court said.

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.

The court noted that there were ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 79, 196 (1)(a), 296(a), 299, and 302 of the BNS 2023 and directed the Registry to initiate a suo motu case against the former Minister.

Later, the court closed the suo motu proceeding 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.

Ponmudi had approached the High Court challenging the Magistrate's order taking cognisance of the complaint. Dismissing the plea, the court observed that Ponmudi's speech revealed a deliberate intention to wound the sentiments of Hindus by using demeaning words and gestures depicting the practices of Hindus in an obscene manner.

Case Title: Uma Anandan v K Ponmudy

Case No: CC 222/2026