Madras High Court emphasizes the vital role of secularism amid hate speech concerns, refusing to dismiss charges against BJP leader K. Annamalai for contentious remarks against a Christian NGO.
On Thursday, the Madras High Court refused to dismiss the criminal proceedings against K Annamalai, the head of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Tamil Nadu unit. The charges relate to hate speech directed towards Christians, specifically comments made against a Christian missionary organization.
During a YouTube interview, Annamalai claimed that a Christian missionary non-governmental organization (NGO) was the entity behind the petition filed with the Supreme Court, urging a prohibition on the use of firecrackers during Diwali. A video excerpt of this interview, containing Annamalai’s statements, was also shared on the official BJP Tamil Nadu’s Twitter account.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Upholds Equality in Polygamous Marriages
Justice N Anand Venkatesh dismissed Annamalai’s petition for quashing and directed a judicial magistrate in Salem to proceed with the case without being influenced by the comments made by the High Court.
The Court said Annamalai intentionally used a petition about the environment in the Supreme Court to create “communal tension.”
The court’s observations were stern and reflective, pointing out that Annamalai, with his background as a Senior IPS Officer and his current role as a prominent political leader, should have been more aware of the implications of his statements. Justice Venkatesh remarked,
“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.”
The court further clarify on the divisive nature of his speech, pointing out that it was “aimed towards a particular religious group” and falsely accused a minority religious community of undermining the cultural heritage of the majority, Stated,
“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.”
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Initiates Consultation on Reforming Judicial Vacations
The complaint against Annamalai was initiated by V Piyush, a social activist, who argued that Annamalai’s interview, aired just days before Diwali in 2022, was a deliberate attempt to spread communal hatred. Following this complaint, the Salem court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and summoned Annamalai, leading him to seek relief from the High Court.
In defense, Justice Venkatesh critically assessed Annamalai’s attempt to portray the statements as expressions of frustration rather than hate speech. The judge emphasized the importance of a contemporary interpretation of hate speech laws, particularly in the context of social media’s widespread influence.
“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… 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,”
Justice Venkatesh explained.
The court emphasized that hate speech includes psychological impact, not just physical harm. It highlighted the permanence of Twitter posts, deeming them potential ticking bombs. Annamalai’s statements were found to have a prima facie psychological impact on the targeted group.
