Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Madras High Court has quashed a sedition case against two publishers over a book recounting the life of Tamil separatist leader Tamizharasan, holding that merely recording a historical call for a separate Tamil Nadu does not amount to inciting hatred against the Union government or the nation.
In an order dated June 29, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the offence of sedition must be assessed in the context of the “present social milieu” and held that a statement advocating a separate Tamil Nadu would not excite hatred or disaffection among the public today.
“In today’s scenario, India as a nation is unified by heart and soul. If any person speaks about dividing Tamil Nadu into a separate nation, the person will certainly be referred to as having mental health issues and it will not excite any hatred at all among the common public. At best, it will cause annoyance and therefore, in the present social milieu, the mere publication of that sentence cannot be considered as inciting hatred against the nation or the Government of India,” the court observed.
The petition was filed by Keera alias Moorthi and Thamil Bala, who were arrayed as accused in a criminal case pending before the 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Saidapet, Chennai.
According to the prosecution, the two were associated with Kalagam Pathippagam, a publishing house that had released a book in 2014 authored by the late Elangovan on the life of Tamizharasan. The book recorded that in 1967, Tamizharasan had declared that Tamil Nadu should become a separate nation and that guerrilla warfare should be adopted to achieve secession.
Police subsequently registered a case under Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the contents of the book promoted secession and incited hatred against the government.
The publishers argued that the Madras High Court had already, in a similar case involving another publication, held that the application of the sedition law must be examined in light of present-day circumstances. They relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in SG Vombatkere v Union of India, which led to a reconsideration of pending sedition prosecutions.
The State opposed the plea, contending that references to secession and guerrilla warfare amounted to sedition and justified the prosecution.
Rejecting the argument, the High Court said that the essence of the offence of sedition is an attempt to bring the government established by law into hatred, contempt, or disaffection. While such a speech may have had that effect when it was allegedly delivered in 1967, the court held that the same could not be presumed in today’s circumstances.
The court also noted that the publication did not advocate a separate Tamil Nadu as a present-day political objective. Instead, it merely recorded what Tamizharasan had said decades earlier.
“Further, it can be seen that in the instant book it is not even mentioned as a present day affair but only records that during the time of Tamizharasan, he announced the same that Tamil Nadu should be a separate nation... Mere recording of what had happened will not even amount to an attempt to incite hatred.”
Holding that the ingredients of sedition were therefore not made out, the court quashed the proceedings against the publishers.
