Ponmudi's Speech Reveals Deliberate Intention To Wound Hindus' Religious Beliefs: Madras High Court While Refusing To Quash Hate Speech Case

The Madras High Court, on Thursday (July 2), dismissed a plea filed by former DMK Minister K Ponmudi challenging an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, taking cognisance of a hate speech complaint filed against him by BJP Councillor Uma Anandan. Refusing to quash the hate speech case, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan 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. “The speech of the accused reveals a deliberate intention to wound the religious beliefs of Hindus by using demeaning words and gestures depicting the customary practices of the Hindu religion in an obscene manner, allegedly on account of his inability to propagate atheist ideology. Such speech caused emotional hurt and wounded the religious feelings of persons belonging to the Hindu religion,” the court observed. 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 proceeding when the State informed that all the complaints had been duly investigated and closed since there was no material. The court noted that for a speech to amount to hate speech, it must have been made with no other purpose but to attack another religion by instigating one group of persons to act against that religion. In the present case, the court noted that Ponmudi's speech promoted hatred and ill will between atheists professing atheism and persons belonging to the Hindu religion. The court observed that Ponmudi's speech degraded ad attacked Hindu religious practice, customs, and culture in the presence of a group of persons professing atheism. The court added that the speech showed the hatred and ill will towards the Hindu religion. Thus, the court held that ingredients of Section 196(i)(a) of the BNS [promoting enmity], Section 299 of BNS [outraging religious feelings] and Section 302 of BNS [uttering words or gestures with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings] were attracted. “By his intentional, malicious speech, signs, and visible representations, the accused clearly attracted the offence under Section 196(i)(a) of the BNS. Further, his speech promoted hatred and ill will by degrading and attacking Hindu religious practices, customs, and culture in the presence of a gathering of persons professing atheist ideology. He also delivered an offensive speech implying an intention to strengthen and embolden followers of atheist ideology to make verbal attacks against the Hindu religion in a demeaning and obscene manner, without fear, by expressing hatred and ill will towards the Hindu religion. The accused was fully aware of the consequences of his speech, particularly since he was a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a Minister in the Government,” the court said. With respect to Ponmudi's argument that a prior sanction under Section 217 BNSS was not obtained, the court observed that it had suo motu taken cognisance of the case and closed it after noting the State's submission of having filed closure reports. The court also noted that it had given liberty to the complainants to challenge the closure report or file private complaint with the Magistrate, which was done in the present case. The court held that once suo motu cognisance had been taken, the trial court was not required to wait for sanction. “Once this Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the alleged hate speech, the trial Court was not required to await sanction under Section 217 of BNSS, before proceeding with the complaint,” the court said. Thus, noting that the offences had been made out against Ponmudi, the court held that the trial court had rightly taken cognisance of the complaint and issued summons to him. Finding no infirmity or illegality, the court dismissed Ponmudi's plea. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.S.Aswin Prasanna Counsel for Respondent: Mr.S.Makesh Case Title: K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 290 Case No: Crl RC 645 of 2026Click Here to Read/Download The Judgment

Ponmudi's Speech Reveals Deliberate Intention To Wound Hindus' Religious Beliefs: Madras High Court While Refusing To Quash Hate Speech Case

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Ponmudi's Speech Reveals Deliberate Intention To Wound Hindus' Religious Beliefs: Madras High Court While Refusing To Quash Hate Speech Case

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers