The Madras High Court has observed that the remarks made by Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin on Sanatana Dharma amount to hate speech, while quashing an FIR registered against BJP IT cell head Amit Malviya for his social media posts responding to the speech.
Justice S. Srimathy, while setting aside the case against Malviya, held that it was unjust and legally unsustainable to prosecute a person who merely reacted to a public speech, especially when no legal action had been initiated against the individual who made the original remarks.
The court noted that Malviya’s posts were a reaction to a publicly delivered speech by a constitutional authority and did not constitute any independent criminal offence. Continuing the FIR, the judge said, would amount to a misuse of the legal process.
Court Flags Unequal Application of Law
Expressing concern over what it termed a disturbing pattern, the High Court remarked that individuals who make allegedly offensive or inflammatory statements often escape legal scrutiny, while those who question or respond to such remarks face swift police action.
“This Court, with pain, records the prevailing situation that the persons who initiate hate speech are let scot-free, while those who react to such speech face the wrath of the law,” the judge observed, according to Live Law.
The court added that selective enforcement of law undermines public confidence in the justice system and raises serious constitutional concerns.
Background of the Case
The controversy dates back to 2023, when Udhayanidhi Stalin, speaking at a ‘Sanatana Abolition Conference’, compared Sanatana Dharma to diseases such as dengue and malaria, stating that it should be “eradicated” rather than merely opposed. The remarks sparked nationwide debate and led to multiple legal petitions across the country.
Following the speech, Amit Malviya shared a video clip of the remarks on social media platform X and questioned their intent and implications. A complaint was subsequently filed against him, alleging that his posts promoted hatred and misinformation.
Malviya argued before the court that he had only shared publicly available content and raised questions of public interest. He also contended that the FIR against him was politically motivated.
Accepting his submissions, the Madras High Court ruled that criminal law cannot be invoked selectively and quashed the FIR, bringing relief to the BJP leader.
