Former Minister Ponmudi Moves Madras High Court Against Magistrate Taking Cognisance Of Hate Speech Complaint

Former Tamil Nadu Minister K Ponmudi has approached the Madras High Court, challenging an 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 against Vaishnavism, Saivism, 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 BNS 2023 and directed Registry to initiate suo motu case against the former Minister.

During the hearing of the suo motu case, the State informed the court that all the 112 complaints received against Ponmudi were duly investigated and closed since no material was found. To this, the court had remarked that it would come down heavily against the authorities if it was found that the complaints were closed without issuing notice to the complainant.

Later, the court closed the suo motu proceeding, giving 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.

When the complaint came up before the Magistrate, Uma Anandan argued that Ponmudy had made the offensive speech for promoting hatred and ill will between the Hindu religion and the regional group of atheists. It was argued that Ponmudi had intentionally insulted and wounded the hindu religion and the religious feeling and belief of followers.

On the other hand, Ponmudi's side raised an objection to the complaint. It was argued that the alleged speech was made in a closed-door session and Ponmudi had merely reiterated the contents of a speech made almost 50 years ago. It was argued that the offences alleged would not be attracted since there were no two groups in this case, so as to create enmity, and there was no intention to hurt the religious sentiments. It was also argued that necessary sanction was not obtained under Section 217 BNSS to lodge a complaint.

The magistrate, after hearing the parties, noted that the arguments put forward by Ponmudi was a matter of trial and there was prima facie case made out against him. The court was thus inclined to take cognisance of the complaint and issued summons.

"A careful perusal of records woulds reveals that the Accused has made speech which is available is Social Media Platform “You Tube”, where alleged hate speech is made by the Respondent. The Complainant has lodged Complaint before Police. The Police has filed closure Report. The Complainant has filed a private Complaint. The same was recorded in the Direction of Hon'ble High Court. The contentions made by Learned Counsel for Respondent are matter for Trial. The alleged hate speech made by Respondent is admitted fact. The Learned Counsel for Complainant has submitted that state mechanism fails to take cognizance. Hence, he has filed Private Complaint and has highlighted Hon'ble Supreme Court citation in a case between Pravasi Bhalari Sangatham Vs. Union of India and other reported in (2014) II SCC 477. Prima facie case is made out against Respondent for offences Under Section 196(i) (a), 299, 302 of Bharatiya Niyaya Sanhita, 2023. This Court is inclined to take Cognizance of the above said offences against Accused. Issue summons to Accused. Prepare Section 207 Cr.P.C., Copies, call on 24.03.2026. Crl.M.P.No.7141/2025 is Allowed," the Magistrate ordered.

Against this, Ponmudi has now approached the high court.

Case Title: K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan

Case No: Crl RC 645 of 2026