Also Read - Kerala High Court Holds Section 50 NDPS Act Compliance Mandatory Even When Accused Produces Contraband During Body Search

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.

Also Read - Gauhati High Court Upholds Foreigners Tribunal Order Declaring Petitioner a Foreigner

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.

Also Read - Defamation Suit Against Rahul Gandhi: Cross‑Examination of Satyaki Savarkar Continues in Pune MP/MLA Court

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.

Also Read - Delhi High Court Orders INTERPOL Red Corner Notice Against UK-Based Father for Maintenance Default

The case is cited as K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 290, Crl RC 645 of 2026.