Amit Malviya, the National Convenor of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) IT Cell, has petitioned the Madras High Court to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him. The FIR alleges that Malviya distorted remarks made by Tamil Nadu’s Sports Development and Youth Welfare Minister, Udhayanidhi Stalin, concerning Sanatana dharma.
The FIR was initiated by the Trichy police based on a complaint from KAV Thinakaran, the District Organiser of the DMK-Advocate Wing in Trichy. Malviya faces charges under Sections 153, 153A, 504, and 505(1)(b) of the IPC, which pertain to promoting enmity between groups and causing public mischief. The complaint suggests that Malviya’s posting of Udayanidhi’s speech video aimed to incite violence between factions by spreading false information.
In his plea, Malviya asserted that the entire prosecution was
“politically motivated and absurd in nature.”
He contended that the FIR was baseless, lacking evidence of any criminal wrongdoing. Malviya emphasized that he had merely reproduced the Minister’s speech without inciting any agitation against the Minister or his party. He argued,
“Merely placing facts before the public about the mindset and narrative being followed by the opposition alliance did not make out any offence.”
Furthermore, Malviya highlighted that the complaint lacked the essential ingredient of mens rea, or guilty intent. He stated that his actions had no intention of promoting class or community hatred. To substantiate charges under Sections 153 and 505(2), there must be evidence of promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups. Malviya claimed the complaint failed to demonstrate that his actions had such an effect.
Additionally, Malviya pointed out that the Minister had not claimed defamation, questioning the locus of a proxy individual to proceed with the complaint. He stated,
“The FIR, as it stands, is flawed and appears to have been filed in bad faith… these proceedings have been launched without a legitimate foundation or any effort to assess the credibility of the complainant, seemingly with a hidden agenda aimed at causing undue distress to the Petitioner.”
Asserting that citizens have the right to comment on public issues, Malviya sought to terminate the proceedings, arguing that allowing the prosecution would lead to undue harassment.
Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench has issued a notice to the police, directing them to respond to Malviya’s plea. The case, titled “Amit Malviya v State,” bearing the number Crl OP (MD) No. 17575 of 2023, is set for further proceedings.
