Madras High Court stayed proceedings against K. Annamalai in Salem case over remarks on Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar exempted appearance and issued notice.
The Madras High Court ordered a stay on further proceedings in a criminal case pending against former BJP State president K. Annamalai before a judicial magistrate court in Salem. The case was filed over allegations that, during a press conference, Mr. Annamalai said that Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar (in 1956) had warned of performing ‘blood abhishekam’ for Madurai Meenakshi Amman “if atheists continued to insult theists.”
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar granted the interim stay, allowed the matter to proceed without the personal appearance of Mr. Annamalai before the trial court, and issued notice to the complainant, Piyush Manush, returnable by June 15, on Mr. Annamalai’s plea to quash the private complaint.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Intervenes in Hate Speech Case Against Tamil Nadu BJP Chief K. Annamalai
The judicial magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint on February 11, 2026, and ordered summons for the petitioner’s appearance.
Background:
The proceedings stem from a complaint filed against former Tamil Nadu BJP president K. Annamalai in connection with statements he made during a press interaction in September 2023. In that press conference, Annamalai reportedly referred to a historical remark attributed to Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar, a prominent and revered leader in Tamil Nadu politics and society. According to the complaint, Annamalai stated that Thevar, in 1956, had warned that a “blood abhishekam” would be performed for Madurai Meenakshi Amman Temple if atheists continued to insult believers. The complainant alleged that this statement was provocative, capable of disturbing communal harmony, and amounted to promoting enmity and hurting religious sentiments.
He approached the Salem City Commissioner of Police in November 2023, apart from filing the private complaint before the jurisdictional judicial magistrate. He further obtained the State government’s sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on April 28, 2024 to prosecute Mr. Annamalai under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The complainant argued that invoking such a statement in the present context could incite tension between different ideological and religious groups, particularly in a politically sensitive environment. It was further contended that attributing such strong remarks to a respected historical figure without proper context or necessity could mislead the public and create unrest. Consequently, offences relating to promoting disharmony and making inflammatory statements were invoked against Annamalai.
The magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups on grounds including religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.) and 505(1)(c) (making statements with intent to incite any class or community to commit an offence against another class or community) of the IPC, leading to the filing of the quash petition.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Rejects Quash Plea Filed by Tamil Nadu BJP President Annamalai
Mr. Annamalai’s Contentions:
Challenging the continuation of these proceedings, Annamalai approached the Madras High Court seeking quashing or interim relief.
Mr. Annamalai argued that the magistrate had taken cognizance through a cryptic order and without conducting any preliminary inquiry. He also contended that the complaint was filed with political intent and did not disclose the context in which the press meet was held. He further denied that he had tried to disturb public tranquility.
He added that the complainant was an active supporter of the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and stated that his press meet address in 2023 was in response to remarks made by DMK leaders, who allegedly equated Sanatana Dharma with malaria and dengue while calling for its annihilation. In that backdrop, Mr. Annamalai claimed that he had said the DMK leaders would not have made such comments if Muthuramalinga Thevar had been alive.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE