Madras HC quashes FIR against Amit Malviya, calls Udhayanidhi’s remarks hate speech

Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday, January 20, quashed a criminal case registered against BJP IT cell head Amit Malviya over a social media post criticising Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks on Sanatan Dharma. The court held that the Minister’s original speech amounted to hate speech and ruled that opposing or questioning such speech does not attract criminal liability.

Allowing Malviya’s petition, Justice S Srimathy ruled that a response questioning or opposing hate speech could not itself be treated as a criminal act. The judge held that continuing the FIR against Malviya would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

The FIR had been registered by the Tiruchy City Crime Branch in 2023 after Malviya described Udhayanidhi’s remarks at a conference as a “call for genocide”. He was booked under Sections 153, 153A, 504 and 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code based on a complaint filed by KAV Dinakaran, organiser of the DMK advocates’ wing in Tiruchy South. The complaint alleged that Malviya had distorted the Minister’s speech to promote enmity.

According to media reports, Justice Srimathy held that Malviya’s social media post could not be examined in isolation and that the court was required to first scrutinise the contents of the Minister’s speech delivered at the ‘Sanatan Abolition Conference’ organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association on September 2, 2023. The judge noted that Udhayanidhi had stated that Sanatan Dharma should not merely be opposed but abolished or eradicated.

The court placed particular emphasis on the Tamil word used in the speech, observing that the term translated as “abolish” implied that something existing should cease to exist. The judge reasoned that if Sanatan Dharma was said to have no place, it would also extend to the exclusion of those who follow it. In such a context, the court observed that the appropriate descriptions would amount to genocide if applied to a group of people, or religicide if applied to a religion.

Justice Srimathy further held that the phrase used in the speech clearly conveyed meanings of genocide or culturicide, and that the remarks were directed against a vast section of the population that follows Sanatan Dharma. The judge concluded that the speech was plainly directed against Hindus and therefore fell within the scope of hate speech.

Rejecting the allegation that Malviya’s post itself amounted to hate speech, the court held that he had merely questioned the implications of the minister’s remarks. The judge noted that Malviya, as a follower of Sanatan Dharma, could be seen as a victim of the alleged hate speech and that his post amounted to a defence against it rather than an incitement.

The court also noted that Malviya had not called for protests, violence, or agitation against the Minister or the ruling party. Instead, his post was framed as a question seeking an explanation, which did not satisfy the requirements to attract the penal provisions invoked in the FIR.

Justice Srimathy referred to a March 2024 order of the Madras High Court passed in a quo warranto petition against Udhayanidhi, in which his remarks had similarly been characterised as hate speech.

Expressing concern over a broader pattern, the court observed that it was disturbed by the prevailing situation where legal action was being initiated against those reacting to hate speech rather than against those who made the original statements. The judge pointed out that while no case had been registered against the minister in Tamil Nadu for his remarks, cases had been filed in other states.

The court held that allowing the criminal proceedings against Malviya to continue would cause irreparable harm and injury.

Justice Srimathy also strongly criticised a statement made by the investigating officer in the counter affidavit, which had questioned why the Minister could not speak about Sanatan Dharma if the Governor and the BJP were permitted to do so. The judge observed that this revealed a political bias in a document filed by an investigating officer, noting that public officials were required to remain apolitical and that taking sides with a political party was unacceptable.

Udhayanidhi’s remarks were made in September 2023, when he said that while some things could be opposed, others needed to be eliminated, comparing Sanatan Dharma to diseases such as dengue and COVID. In response, Malviya posted on X that the Minister had equated Sanatan Dharma with diseases and was effectively calling for the genocide of those who followed it.

Although Udhayanidhi later clarified that he was referring to the elimination of Sanatan Dharma as an idea rather than calling for violence against people, the High Court held that the language used in the original speech carried serious implications.

Concluding that the FIR against Malviya was unsustainable, the court ruled that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process and quashed the case.