Background of the Proceedings
The dispute originated from a complaint filed by BJP Councillor Uma Anandan alleging that statements made by K Ponmudi amounted to hate speech against Hindus. The Metropolitan Magistrate at Georgetown took cognisance of the complaint and issued summons to Ponmudi. Aggrieved by this order, Ponmudi approached the Madras High Court seeking to have the proceedings quashed.
Prior to the filing of the complaint, the High Court had, on 17 April 2025, directed the State Government to register a First Information Report against Ponmudi. When no FIR was forthcoming, the Court initiated suo motu proceedings, observing that the speech prima facie constituted hate speech. Subsequently, the suo motu proceedings were closed after the State informed the Court that all complaints had been investigated and closed due to lack of material. The complainants were then permitted to challenge the closure report or file a private complaint before the Magistrate, which they did.
Court’s Observations on the Speech
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, delivering the order, noted that the speech delivered by Ponmudi revealed a deliberate intention to wound the religious beliefs of Hindus. The Court found that the address employed demeaning words and gestures that depicted customary Hindu practices in an obscene manner. The Bench highlighted that the speaker appeared motivated by an inability to propagate an atheist ideology, and that the remarks caused emotional hurt and wounded the feelings of persons belonging to the Hindu religion.
The Court further observed that the comments targeted Saivism, Vaishnavism and women, and that they were made in the presence of a gathering professing atheism. It concluded that the speech promoted hatred and ill will between atheists and Hindus, degraded Hindu religious practices, customs and culture, and displayed hostility towards the Hindu faith.
Legal Reasoning and Application of Statutory Provisions
Analysing the ingredients required for an offence of hate speech, the Court held that for speech to fall within the prohibitory scope, it must be made with no other purpose than to attack another religion by inciting one group to act against that religion. Applying this test, the Bench found that Ponmudi’s speech satisfied the criteria.
Accordingly, the Court held that the provisions of Section 196(i)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhiti (promoting enmity), Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhiti (outraging religious feelings) and Section 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhiti (uttering words or gestures with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings) were attracted. The Bench emphasised that the accused, by his intentional, malicious speech, signs and visible representations, clearly committed the offence under Section 196(i)(a). It added that the speech promoted hatred and ill will by degrading and attacking Hindu religious practices, customs and culture in the presence of persons professing atheist ideology, and that it implied an intention to embolden followers of atheism to launch verbal attacks against Hindus in a demeaning and obscene manner.
The Court also took note of Ponmudi’s status as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a Minister in the Government, observing that he was fully aware of the likely consequences of his utterances.
Consideration of the Sanction Requirement
Ponmudi contended that the trial court ought to have awaited sanction under Section 217 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhiti before proceeding, as no prior sanction had been obtained. The High Court rejected this contention, stating that once it had taken suo motu cognisance of the alleged hate speech, the trial court was not required to await such sanction. The Bench clarified that it had itself taken suo motu cognisance, later closed the proceedings after noting the State’s submission of closure reports, and had granted liberty to the complainants to challenge the closure report or file a private complaint, which they had done.
Thus, the Court held that the requirement of prior sanction did not apply once the High Court had exercised its suo motu power.
Disposition
Having found no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, the Madras High Court dismissed Ponmudi’s petition. The Court affirmed that the trial court had rightly taken cognisance of the complaint and issued summons to the accused. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with costs to be borne by the petitioner.
The case is cited as K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 290, Crl RC 645 of 2026.