'Clear Attack On Hinduism By Dravida Kazhagam' : Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Amit Malviya For Post Against Udhayanidhi Stalin

The Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against BJP's Amit Malviya for his tweets criticising Tamil Nadu Deputy CM and Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Udhayanidhi Stalin's remarks on Santana DharmaJustice S Srimathy observed that Malviya had only reacted to the speech made by the Minister and continuing any proceedings against him for such reaction would be an abuse of the process of law and would cause him irreparable harm and injury.The Court also recorded that while no case had been registered against the Minister for his hate speech in the case, it was painful that a hate speech case was registered against the person reacting to it.“This Court with pain records the prevailing situation that the person who initiates the hate speech are let scot-free, but the persons who reacted for the hate speech are facing the wrath of the law. The Courts are also questioning the persons who reacted but are not putting the law on motion against the person initiated the hate speech,” the court observed.The issue arises from a speech made by the Minister in 2023 while attending a conference titled 'Sanathan Abolition Conference,' organized by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association, where the Minister compared Sanatana Dharma to dengue and malaria and called for its eradication. Cases were filed in the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court against the Minister.The case against Malviya was that after the conference, he had posted the video of the speech on his social media, distorted the speech and made comments as if the Minister had called for genocide of 80% people in Bharat who were practicing Sanatana Dharma.A complaint was lodged by K.A.V. Thinakaran, District Organiser of DMK-Advocate Wing, Trichy South following which a case was registered against Malviya offences punishable under sections 153, 153A and 505(1)(b) IPC, 1860. Malviya had approached the court seeking to quash this FIR.Malviya argued that he had merely extracted the Minister's speech, which was already in the media, and had expressed his understanding of it, questioning the object and purpose of the speech. He argued that the speech of the Minister was of a grave nature and had the potential to inflame hatred and encourage violence against a majority of citizens of Bharat who follow Sanathan Dharma. He thus argued that the allegations against him are false, absurd, and politically motivated. The prosecution argued that Malaviya had distorted the Minister's speech and spread fake news as if the Minister had called for the genocide of 80% majority population. The prosecution argued that Malviya had shared posts in the Hindi language, also, to create enmity between different groups of people and demolish the social fabric of the country, and to cause unrest in the country. The prosecution pointed out that after Malaviya's posts, a seer, Paramhans Acharya of Ayodhya, had even announced a reward of Rs. 10 crore for beheading the Minister. Thus, the prosecution argued that Malviya's post would come under hate speech. The Court, after looking into the materials, observed that Malaviya had not asked any people to start any agitation either against the Minister or the party but had only put forward facts and questions. The court noted that Malviya had only sought replies from the Minister, and the same would not attract any of the ingredients of the sections charged.Attack On Hinduism By Dravida PartyOn the allegation that Malviya had interpreted a hidden meaning of the Minister's speech, the Court noted that the party to which the Minister belonged had repeatedly stated several things about Sanatana Dharma, and the overall circumstances leading to the present case would have to be considered.The Court noted that there were records of specific incidents where Hinduism had been attacked by the party by garlanding Lord Ram's idol with slippers or breaking Ganesha idols. The Court noted that though complaints were preferred, it were not acted upon except in a few cases. The Court thus observed that there was a clear attack on Hindus by the party. "Therefore, it is evident that there is clear attack on Hinduism by the Dravida Kazhagam and subsequently along with by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, for the past 100 years, to which the Minister belongs. While considering the overall circumstances, it is seen the petitioner had questioned the hidden meaning of the minister's speech," the court observed.Minister's speech comes within 'hate speech'Thus, the Court concluded that the minister's speech was against 80% Hindus and was within the mischief of hate speech. The Court added that Malviya, who was a sanathani and victim of such hate speech, had only defended the Sanatana Dharma and the same would not attract any of the provisions of IPC. "Hence by overall consideration the speech of the minister would clearly indicate it is totally against 80% Hindus, which come within the mischief of hate speech. The minister hails from the above...

'Clear Attack On Hinduism By Dravida Kazhagam' : Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Amit Malviya For Post Against Udhayanidhi Stalin

Upasana Sajeev

The Court opined that Udhayanidhi's speech against 'Sanatana Dharma' was hate speech and implied genocide.

Tags