Madras High Court declines to close suo motu case against ex-Minister K Ponmudi for lewd joke on Shaivite-Vaishnavite tilaks. Court warns politicians can’t misuse Article 19 under the guise of free speech.
The Madras High Court has decided to keep pending the suo motu (on its own) case against former Tamil Nadu Forest Minister K Ponmudi, who reportedly told a vulgar joke involving religious symbols — the tilaks worn by followers of Hindu sects, Shaivites and Vaishnavites.
This decision comes even though the Tamil Nadu police have already closed over 120 complaints related to this matter.
Justice P Velmurugan, who is hearing the case, strongly criticised the irresponsible behaviour of politicians when speaking in public.
He said that many leaders wrongly believe they have complete freedom under Article 19 of the Constitution (which gives the right to free speech).
Justice Velmurugan said:
“Nowadays, all politicians, all persons making public speeches…they think Article 19 gives them absolute rights…that only sky is the limit. Court cannot simply be a silent spectator…There are reasonable restrictions…There are several sects, religious communities…They should think about it, when they are in public life…They must understand that they are living in a democratic country, it is for every citizen, not just any particular citizen…146 crore people are living in this country. Everyone taking a mic in public must understand…A strong message should go. So many things are being said, as if they (politicians) are the kings of this country. Whatever they say, (they think) they can do no wrong. Court cannot watch these things silently.”
The judge made it clear that being a public figure does not give someone the right to hurt religious sentiments or insult communities.
Representing the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government, Advocate General PS Raman informed the Court that the police had already investigated and closed over 120 complaints against Ponmudi.
He explained that Ponmudi had not made the comment himself but had only repeated something that was said long ago.
The Advocate General said the people who filed the complaints can still approach higher police officials if they want further action.
In response, the Court said:
“Let them invoke…Meanwhile, we will keep it (suo motu case) pending, (and see) what will happen (if superior officers are approached). Court wants to vigilantly watch.”
Justice Velmurugan also directed the police to inform all complainants about the status of their complaints. He warned that if even one complainant claims they weren’t informed, the Court would take strict action:
“If any complainant later alleges that he was not informed about the status of his complaint, the Court will come down on the State heavily.”
The judge expressed concern about how the police had closed the complaints too early, possibly without proper investigation.
He pointed out that during a preliminary inquiry, the police are only supposed to check whether an incident took place or not. They are not supposed to give a final judgment during this stage. Justice Velmurugan said:
“There is a difference between preliminary inquiry (prior to registering FIR), which deals with whether the incident took place, and the investigation that take place during investigation of FIR…They (police) can’t write the judgment in the preliminary inquiry itself. He (investigating officer) can’t say it is not hate speech (at the stage of preliminary inquiry)…Can he say only the original, not subsequent speaker can be punished?”
The Court has now adjourned the case to August 1 and will continue to monitor the developments closely. Justice Velmurugan concluded:
“We’ll watch it…I want to know what is happening in this country…We can’t close it.”
The controversial remarks were reportedly made by Ponmudi during a public meeting on April 8, organised by the Thanthai Periyar Dravida Kazhagam (TPDK).
During the event, Ponmudi allegedly repeated a joke about a prostitute asking a man if he was a Shaivite or Vaishnavite and then deciding her payment based on the tilak he wore (horizontal for Shaivites and vertical for Vaishnavites).
The joke involved sexual references and mocked religious identity based on sexual positions.
This speech caused widespread anger and backlash across the state. In response, the DMK removed Ponmudi from his position as Deputy General Secretary of the party.
Earlier, Justice Anand Venkatesh had directed the registration of a suo motu criminal writ petition against Ponmudi after he condemned the remarks.
He expressed dissatisfaction over the police’s slow response to the complaints.
Justice Venkatesh had said:
“The continued inaction and hesitation of Tamil Nadu Police (in acting on complaints against Ponmudi’s speech) is most distressing and unfortunate.”
Click Here to Read Our Reports on K Ponmudi
