The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that calling for the “eradication” of Sanatana Dharma carries genocidal implications and constitutes hate speech, while quashing the FIR against BJP leader Amit Malviya for his critical X post.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MADHURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed an FIR registered against BJP IT Cell head Amit Malviya for his post on X (Twitter) reacting to Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks on Sanatana Dharma.
Justice S. Srimathy, while allowing the criminal’s original petition, held that calling for the “eradication” of a religion by likening it to a disease amounts to hate speech, whereas Malviya’s post was merely a critical response without any incitement to violence.
Background of the Case
The controversy arose from a speech delivered on September 2, 2023, by Udhayanidhi Stalin at a conference, “Sanathan Abolition Conference”, organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association.
During his address, the Minister compared Sanatana Dharma to diseases such as dengue, malaria, and COVID-19, stating that certain things cannot merely be opposed but must be “abolished” or “eradicated”. He used the Tamil expression “Sanathana Ozhippu”, meaning eradication.
Amit Malviya subsequently shared a video clip of the speech on X and posed a question asking whether such remarks amounted to a call for the genocide of nearly 80% of Bharat’s population, who follow Sanatana Dharma.
Following a complaint, an FIR was registered against Malviya under Sections 153, 153A, and 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, alleging promotion of enmity and public mischief.
Legal Issue Before the Court
The central question before the Court was whether Malviya’s social media post constituted hate speech, or whether it fell within the bounds of constitutionally protected political criticism under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Court’s Observations
Justice Srimathy held that the entire prosecution was based on the meaning of the word “Ozhippu”.
“The synonyms for the word ‘abolish’ are eradicate, eliminate, exterminate, destroy, annihilate, wipe out.”
Applying these meanings to religion, the Court made a crucial observation:
“If Sanathana Dharma should not be there, then the people following Sanathana Dharma should not be there. If a group of people following Sanathana Dharma should not be there, then the appropriate word is ‘genocide’. If Sanathana Dharma is a religion, then it is ‘religicide’.”
The Court further noted that such language could also amount to culturicide or cultural genocide.
The High Court categorically held that Malviya’s post did not attract the ingredients of Sections 153A or 505 IPC, for the following reasons:
- The post was framed as a question, not a call for violence
- There was no mens rea (criminal intent)
- It did not promote enmity between two identifiable communities
- It was a reaction to an alleged hate speech, not an original act of provocation
“When a hate speech is uttered by the minister, the petitioner opposing the said hate speech cannot be considered as crime.”
Rejecting the State’s argument that Malviya instigated the majority population, the Court remarked:
“If such an argument is accepted, then it would amount to stating that the minister is instigating the 20% population against the 80% population.”
The judgment extensively relied on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, including:
- Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. (1997) – Requirement of mens rea for hate speech offences
- Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya (2021) – Free speech cannot be curtailed unless it disturbs public order
- Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. (2023) – Courts may look beyond the FIR when proceedings are manifestly vexatious
The Court reiterated that strong, critical, or uncomfortable speech does not automatically amount to criminality.
Justice Srimathy expressed serious concern over the selective application of criminal law, observing:
“This Court with pain records the prevailing situation that the person who initiates the hate speech are let scot-free, but the persons who reacted for the hate speech are facing the wrath of the law.”
The Court also reprimanded the investigating officer for introducing political arguments in the counter affidavit, stating that police officials must remain apolitical.
ALSO READ: Sanatana Dharma Remark | “You Abused Rights”: Supreme Court Slams Udhayanidhi Stalin
The Court quashed the FIR registered against Amit Malviya in its entirety, holding that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Consequently, the original criminal petition was allowed, and all related miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Appearance:
Malviya: Senior Advocate Anantha Padmanabhan
Tamil Nadu: Additional Advocate General Ajmal Khan with advocate Abdul Kalaam Azad.
Case Title:
Amit Malviya Vs State of TN
CRL OP(MD)No.17575 of 2023
READ ATTACHMENT
READ ORDER
Read More Reports On Udhayanidhi Stalin
