Ventilating That A Particular Religion Is Treated In A Particular Manner Doesn't Promote Hatred Between Classes U/S 505(2) IPC: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has observed that merely ventilating about the manner in which a particular religion is treated would not constitute an offence under Section 505 of the IPC. Section 505(2) pertains to statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. It stats that whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.The high court also added that to constitute an offence under the Act, there must be incitement of feeling of one group against another. “In order to constitute an offence under Section 505(2) of IPC, this section is aimed at reports calculated to produce mutiny or induce one section of the population to commit offences against another. A ventilation of grievance by means of expressing that a particular religion is treated in a particular manner, will not constitute an offence under this provision. There must be incitement of feelings of one group as against the other group and only then this provision will apply. The test that is applied while dealing with Section 153A of IPC is generally applied for this provision also,” the court said. Justice Anand Venkatesh added that abusive language by itself was not an offence unless it was shown that the person making the speech had the intention or knowledge that the speech could provoke or break the public peace. The court was hearing a petition filed by Thirumaran to quash the proceedings initiated against him based on a complaint by one V Balakrishnan. The case against Thirumaran was that while giving a YouTube interview, he had made scandalous and false statements against the then Tamil Nadu Finance Minister and also made provocative statements against all religions thereby attempting to create a breach of peace and communal harmony. Thirumaran had allegedly said that properties belonging to Hindus must only stay with Hindus and their leaders and income arising out of those properties should not be used for other purposes. Drawing parallels to Muslims and Christians, he allegedly stated that only in case of properties of Hindus, did the HR & CE Department have control. Thirumaran challenged the criminal proceedings by arguing that it was politically motivated. He submitted that even if the entire speech was taken as it is, it would, at best, be construed as implications against the Finance Minister and his family members and the same would not constitute an offence under Sections 504 and 505(2) of the IPC. He thus argued that the criminal proceedings itself was an abuse of process of law and that no offence had been made out against him. The Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that Thirumaran's speech had two parts – one against the finance minister and the other against all religions. He submitted that the second part of the speech was a provocative one with an intention to create a breach of peace and affect communal harmony. He further submitted that since this interview and widely circulated, it caused disturbance not only to the party cadres but also to the general public. He also informed the court that Thirumaran was in the habit of making such provocative speech and already had 12 cases pending against him. While perusing the content of Thirumaran's interview, the court noted that the interview was quite rude and did not augur well for a person claiming to be the leader of a party. The court also commented that recently, it had become a fashion for many to use social media to speak whatever they felt without realising the impact it will have on the general public. The court added that such instances were regular in matters relating to religion. “Anyone who speaks touching upon religion, must keep in mind that all those speeches are recorded and are freely uploaded and distributed in the social media. Therefore, if a provocative speech is made touching upon the sensitivity of the religious beliefs and faith, it can certainly give rise to breach of peace and communal disharmony. Even if it does not happen immediately, such recorded speeches can be circulated at an appropriate time and it can result in a breach of peace at that point of time. The test of instantaneous violence or breach of peace cannot be understood in a traditional way in this Information Technology era,” the court said. With respect to the first part of the speech, the court observed that the same could have provoked only the party cadres of DMK party since the imputation was on the...

Ventilating That A Particular Religion Is Treated In A Particular Manner Doesn't Promote Hatred Between Classes U/S 505(2) IPC: Madras HC

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Ventilating That A Particular Religion Is Treated In A Particular Manner Doesn't Promote Hatred Between Classes U/S 505(2) IPC: Madras HC

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