Madras High Court Stays Trial Against Ex-Minister K Ponmudi In Hate Speech Case, Dispenses With Appearance Before Magistrate

Justice AD Jagadish Chandira allowed a plea filed by the former minister seeking a stay of the proceedings till the disposal of a plea filed by him challenging the Magistrate's order, taking cognisance of the complaint filed by BJP's Uma Anandan against Ponmudi. The court also allowed a plea dispensing with his further appearance before the Magistrate.

Ponmudi had filed the plea against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, through which the Magistrate took cognisance of a complaint filed by a BJP Councillor, Uma Anandan, against a speech made by Ponmudi.

When the case was taken up on Thursday, Senior Advocate NR Elango submitted that the Magistrate had failed to consider Ponmudi's argument regarding maintainability of the complaint, since a sanction was not obtained under Section 217 of BNSS before lodging the complaint.

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 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 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.

Following this, BJP's Uma Anandan had 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.

Though Ponmudi's side had questioned the maintainability of the complaint and argued that there was no intention, the magistrate, after hearing the parties, noted that the arguments put forward by Ponmudi were a matter of trial and there was a prima facie case made out against him. The court was thus inclined to take cognisance of the complaint and issued a summons.

Case Title: K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan

Case No: Crl RC 645 of 2026