Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Madras High Court on Thursday, July 2, dismissed a petition filed by former Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) minister K Ponmudi, requesting the quashing of a hate speech case registered against him.
Hearing the criminal revision petition filed by Ponmudi, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan upheld the trial court's decision to issue summons against the DMK leader. The trial court has been asked to finish the trial within six months.
The complainant, BJP councillor Uma Anandan, said that an April 6, 2025 speech made by Ponmudi promoted hatred against the Hindu religion and hurt religious sentiments. Although the speech was given at a closed event, it was later uploaded to YouTube and social media.
Ponmudi delivered the speech in question on April 6, 2025, at the DMK Youth Wing office in Chennai. The former minister had reportedly spoken about Shaivism and Vaishnavism. Deeming the remarks as crude, the DMK had expelled Ponmudi from the role of deputy general secretary of the party on April 11 that year.
The Madras High Court has previously initiated suo motu proceedings against Ponmudi on April 17, 2025. According to LiveLaw, the proceedings were later closed after “the State informed that all the complaints had been duly investigated and closed since there was no material.”
On the complaint of BJP councillor Uma Anandan, Ponmudi was booked under Sections 196(i)(a), (promoting disharmony, enmity, or hatred on religious grounds), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and 302 (uttering words or making gestures with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The III Metropolitan Magistrate in George Town had taken up the case.
Requesting that the case be quashed, Ponmudi's lawyers said that the speech was made at a private gathering and the complainant did not witness it herself. They also said that for a case to be initiated, prior government sanction was required under Section 217 (prosecution for offences against the State) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). No such sanction was obtained, the lawyers argued.
After studying the speech in detail, the court found that the remarks were made in a derogatory way.
Justice Ilanthiraiyan said, "For a speech to amount to hate speech against a religion, the words spoken should have no purpose other than exposing an intention to attack another religion by instigating a group of persons to act against that religion." The judge further noted, "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 ruled that the speech clearly matched the charges against Ponmudi, and that no fresh sanction was needed since the High Court had already taken up the matter on its own. The trial court has now been asked to finish the trial within six months.
This article was written by a student interning with TNM.