On Thursday, the Madras High Court declined to dismiss the criminal proceedings initiated against K Annamalai, the BJP State Head, for his comments directed at a Christian Missionary NGO.

During an interview with a YouTube Channel, Annamalai reportedly claimed that a Christian Missionary NGO was the entity that first petitioned the Supreme Court for a ban on firecrackers. A video excerpt of this interview, purportedly containing his statements, was also shared on the Twitter account of BJP TN.

Justice Anand Venkatesh, while declining to dismiss the criminal proceeding stemming from the aforementioned statements, noted that Annamalai had transformed a petition filed for environmental concerns into a catalyst for communal discord. The Justice further remarked that the statements made by Annamalai carried a communal tone.

The court also emphasized that this case serves as a reminder for individuals in positions of power and influence, highlighting the significant impact their words can have on the citizens of the country, given the broader reach and influence they possess.

After the video clips of the interview were circulated on social media, the respondent Piyush, an environmentalist, lodged a complaint with the Director General of Police, the Home Secretary, and the Commissioner of Police, Salem, expressing concerns that the post could incite animosity between the two communities. However, he was informed that the interview did not appear to violate public peace, and no prima facie case was established.

Subsequently, Piyush invoked Section 156(3) and 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Salem Judicial Magistrate. Upon review, the magistrate found that a prima facie case existed under Section 153A and Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, and consequently issued summons to Annamalai. Annamalai challenged both the summons and the entire legal proceedings. He argued that his speeches could be interpreted at most as expressions of distress.

Additionally, he pointed out that the interview had taken place as early as 2022, yet the complaint was filed approximately 400 days later. Moreover, he emphasized that during this intervening period, no negative incidents had occurred as a result of his speech.

Piyush, in contrast, contended that Annamalai's speech constituted a dog whistle, subtly conveying a political message intended for a specific demographic to understand. He further asserted that the required state sanction had been obtained and emphasized that the Magistrate had issued a detailed order upon taking cognizance, demonstrating a thoughtful application of judicial discretion that warranted no interference.

The court observed that hate speech encompasses not only the potential for physical harm but also the psychological impact it may have on individuals or groups. Therefore, courts should not solely concentrate on establishing prima facie physical harm when addressing such cases. Additionally, the court highlighted that posts made on Twitter are permanent data and can act as a latent threat, waiting to exert their intended influence at a later time. Furthermore, the court determined that Annamalai's statements had a prima facie psychological impact on the group they targeted.

The court also acknowledged the Magistrate's discerning judgment in issuing the summons, noting that it was a well-considered decision. Expressing appreciation for the order, the court remarked that it was uncommon to encounter such meticulousness in orders of cognizance, especially at the Magistrate level. Consequently, recognizing the sound reasoning behind the order, the court declined to intervene using its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to interfere with the prosecution.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.C.V.Shyam Sundar

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.V.Suresh