Madras High Court refuses to quash case against BJP’s K Annamalai for hate speech against Christians
The Madras High Court on Thursday refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against K Annamalai, president of Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) Tamil Nadu unit, for hate speech against Christians.
Annamalai, in a YouTube interview, had claimed that it was a Christian missionary NGO that had filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking ban on bursting of firecrackers during Diwali.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh dismissed the quashing petition filed by Annamalai and directed a judicial magistrate in Salem to proceed with the matter without being influenced by the High Court’s comments made in matter.
Justice Venkatesh said Annamalai’s matter was yet another case that should serve as “a reminder to those in positions of power and influence” to exercise caution for their “words and deeds have a wider reach and impact on the citizenry of this country.”
The Court went on to say that Annamalai had knowingly and conveniently used a petition filed before the Supreme Court on environmental issue as a vehicle to stoke “communal tension.”
“The petitioner is a former Senior IPS Officer who is expected to know the laws of the land and he is the President of the BJP State Unit in Tamil Nadu. He is a well-known leader and a mass influencer. Therefore, the statements made by him will have a very wide reach and influence on the people particularly those belonging to the Hindu religion and it carries a lot of impact on this demographic group. The target of his speech is aimed towards a particular religious group and what they were told by the petitioner is that the minority religious group is attempting to destroy the culture of the majority religious group. 46. From the speech of the petitioner, it is unmistakable that he was attempting to portray a calculated attempt made by a Christian Missionary NGO which is funded internationally, to destroy Hindu culture. It also whips up a communal fervour when he says “we are all running to the Supreme Court to counter this” The public was, therefore, led to believe that Christians are out to finish off Hindu’s and that “we” (in this context Hindus) were running to the Supreme Court to defend it. A petition filed in the interests of the environment was suddenly converted into a vehicle for communal tension,” the High Court said.
The complaint against Annamalai was filed by one V Piyush, a social activist. In his complaint filed before the Salem magistrate court in 2022, Piyush had said that Annamalai had given an interview to a YouTube channel on October 22, 2022, just two days before Diwali that year and in that interview, he had deliberately fanned communal hatred against Christians by “lying” that it was a missionary NGO that had filed the first case before the Apex Court.
The Salem court had taken cognisance and issued summons to Annamalai, following which he approached the High Court with the quashing petition.
Annamalai’s counsel argued before the High Court that the statements made by the BJP member cannot be construed as hate speech and that at best, his statement can only be interpreted as “a cry in anguish.”
However, Justice Venkatesh said that it was time to look at what constituted hate speech differently, given the advent and reach of social media. The judge said that courts must shun the traditional approach in interpreting provisions of Sections 153A and 505 of the IPC.
“A man addressing a gathering of say 100 people and a man addressing through social media to the entire world are two different scenarios altogether. The test that is applied for the former cannot be test for the latter. When the law was enacted, the law makers were exposed only to the former scenario and they would have never dreamt that the latter scenario will come into being at some time in future. Hence, the courts must step in to take note of the changed scenario and interpret the provisions of law. That is how the march of law takes place. The interpretation of Sections 153A and 505 of the IPC continued to hold the field from a traditional approach wherein the Court, apart from looking at the intent of the maker of a comment, was also prima facie looking at a palpable consequence like violence, disturbance to law and order, disturbance to public order, etc. This line of thinking has to necessarily change after the advent of technology and more particularly after social media has started taking over our lives,” the High Court said.
Advocate CV Shyam Sundar appeared for Annamalai.
Advocate V Suresh appeared for Piyush, the original complainant and the respondent in the present case.
