The Madras High Court denied anticipatory bail to actor Kasthuri Shankar for allegedly making derogatory remarks against Telugu migrants. Justice N Anand Venkatesh rejected her application following an FIR citing provocative language promoting enmity. Shankar’s defense stating her comments targeted individuals rather than the community was deemed insufficient. The case highlights challenges related to freedom of expression and accountability.
Chennai: The Madras High Court on Thursday (Nov 14th) denied anticipatory bail to actor Kasthuri Shankar, who has been booked by the Madurai police for allegedly making derogatory and casteist remarks against Telugu migrants in Tamil Nadu. Justice N Anand Venkatesh, presiding over the Madurai Bench, dismissed Shankar’s bail application, which she filed after a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against her earlier this month. A detailed order from the Court is expected soon.
Shankar reportedly made the controversial comments during a rally against “Brahmin persecution” held in Chennai on November 3. Following this, an FIR was lodged on November 5 by a local organization, accusing her of using provocative language that allegedly promoted enmity. She has been charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), with offenses including provocation, promoting enmity between groups, and criminal intimidation under Sections 192, 196, and 353.
In her defense, Shankar argued in court that she had already issued a public apology and clarified that her remarks were “specific to certain individuals” rather than targeting the entire Telugu community. Despite this, the Court deemed her apology insufficient for granting anticipatory bail.
This case has drawn considerable public attention as it raises important questions around freedom of expression, accountability, and sensitivity towards ethnic and caste communities. The denial of bail underlines the judiciary’s stance on enforcing respect and legal accountability for remarks that could incite enmity among communities, particularly in a diverse region like Tamil Nadu. The judgment awaiting further details will likely set a precedent for cases involving public figures and inflammatory speech.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE