'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 Dharma

Justice 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.

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 Party

On 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 legacy. Therefore, based on the above background the speech of the minister is hate speech only. The petitioner who is a sanathani is a victim of such hate speech and has only defended the Sanathana Dharma from the hate speech. "

Minister's speech implies genocide : HC

The Court further observed that Udhayanidhi's speech could imply genocide.

"The word “abolish” would indicate “that some existing thing should not be there. If it is applied to the present case, if Sanathana Dharma should not be there, then the people following Sanathana Dharma should not be there. It means suppression of activities that do not conform to the destroyer's notion. Then the above synonym words stated supra are applicable. If a group of people following Sanathana Dharma should not be there, then the appropriate word is “genocide”. If Sanathana Dharma is a religion then it is “Religicide”. It also means to eradicate the people by following any methods or various methods with diverse attacks on ecocide, factocide, culturicide (cultural genocide).

Therefore, the Tamil phrase “Sanathana Ozhippu” would clearly mean genocide or culturicide. In such circumstances, the post of the petitioner questioning the minister's speech would not amount to hate speech."

Thus, the court was inclined to quash the case against Malviya and allowed his plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr N. Anantha Padmanabhan Senior Counsel for M/s. APN Law Associates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.A.S. Abul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate (Crl Side)

Case Title: Amit Malviya v State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 38

Case No: CRL OP(MD)No.17575 of 2023