Criticism of Chief Minister Or Government Cannot Be Deemed Obscene Or Incitement to Riot: Madras HC Quashes Criminal Cases AIADMK MP

The Madras High Court has observed that an expression of thought about the failure of the Chief Minister and his Government or the alleged misuse of the police machinery cannot be considered as obscene, intent to create a riot or an intentional insult to provoke breach of peace.

Quashing cases registered against AIADMK MP C VE Shanmugam for his remarks against Chief Minister MK Stalin, the Bench of Justice G Jayachandran observed that, "The alleged speech of the petitioner extracted in the complainant of Shanmuga Sundaram in Cr.No.194/2022 is in the nature of condemning the high handedness of the ruling party for misusing the police force, Making certain remarks about the Chief Minister and pointed out his failure to fulfil the poll promises, cannot be by any stretch of imagination as obscene or said intent to create riot or it was an intentional insult to provoke breach of peace to attract Section 294(b) or Section 153 or Section 504 IPC. A expression of thought about the failure of the Chief Minister and his Government or the alleged misuse of the police machinery will not attract the offences under Sections 294(b), 153 and 504 IPC."

Shanmugam approached the court to quash two FIRs registered against him at the Villupuram West Police Station, along with the proceedings pending in the Villupuram Judicial Magistrate Court. The FIRs stemmed from a speech he gave during a February 2022 protest organized by the AIADMK party, in which he criticized the arrest of former minister D Jayakumar and made comments against the Chief Minister and his policies. The first FIR, filed by the Village Administrative Officer (VAO), accused Shanmugam and 14 others of violating COVID-19 protocols, with charges under Sections 143, 341, 269, 270, and 290 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for unlawful assembly, wrongful restraint, and negligent acts likely to spread infectious disease.

Seven months later, a second FIR was lodged for the same incident, this time by Shanmuga Sundaram, an office bearer of the DMK party. The second FIR accused Shanmugam of making a provocative speech intended to incite a riot and breach the peace, with charges under Sections 153A, 294(b), 504, and 505(1)(b) of the IPC.

Shanmugam argued that it was unlawful to register multiple FIRs for the same occurrence unless it involved a complaint and counter-complaint. He contended that the second FIR was an afterthought, filed under political pressure without proper investigation or supporting evidence, and that the police unjustly prioritized this FIR over the first.

In contrast, the State argued that Shanmugam was a habitual offender known for making provocative speeches, and that there was no illegality or malice in the prosecution.

The High Court observed that, "in the instant case, from the records, this court has no doubt, that the State Police machinery been mis-used as a tool by the ruling party member to crush the voice of opposition. Hence it is fit case for the Court to interfere in the investigation".

Cause Title: C.Ve.Shanmugam vs State & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment