Court holds that a political speech referring to a historical incident did not show intent to promote enmity or disturb public tranquillity under IPC Sections 153A and 505(1)(c).
The Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Annamalai K. in a case alleging that he made inflammatory remarks promoting hatred between believers and non-believers during a political demonstration and press interactions.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, while allowing the criminal original petition, held that the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 153A and 505(1)(c) of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed that the alleged statement was made in the context of political speech and amounted to a reference to a historical incident, rather than an attempt to incite communal disharmony.
According to the complaint, the petitioner had allegedly attributed certain remarks to Muthuramalingam Thevar, suggesting that he had threatened to replace “milk abhisabkam” with “blood abhisabkam” at Madurai Meenakshi Temple if non-believers insulted the Hindu faith. The respondent claimed that this statement was false, inflammatory, and capable of creating enmity between believers and non-believers.
However, the High Court found that the material on record did not show that the petitioner had targeted any identifiable religious or communal group, or that he had the requisite intention to promote hatred, enmity, or ill-will. The Court emphasized that for Section 153A to apply, there must be promotion or attempted promotion of disharmony between two or more groups on prohibited grounds, along with deliberate and malicious intent.
The Court further noted that there was no material to show that the speech had caused, or was likely to cause, any disturbance to public tranquillity. It also held that Section 505(1)(c) was not attracted in the absence of foundational material indicating an intent to incite public disorder.
Observing that criminal law cannot be used to settle political scores or suppress legitimate political dissent, the Court held that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Salem, in C.C. No. 306 of 2026 was set aside and the case was quashed.
Bottom Line :
IPC Sections 153A and 505(1)(c) - Quashing of private complaint - Mere reference to a historical incident in course of political speech, without material showing intention to promote enmity between identifiable groups or likelihood of disturbance of public tranquillity, does not constitute offences under Sections 153A and 505(1)(c) - Criminal process cannot be used to settle political scores or stifle legitimate political dissent.
Statutory provision(s): Section 153A IPC, Section 505(1)(c) IPC, Section 200 Cr.P.C., Section 482 Cr.P.C., Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, Section 223 BNSS, Section 531(2)(a) BNSS
Annamalai K. v. Piyush V., (Madras) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987135
