Provocative Words Against Believers In Front Of Hindu Temple, Can't Prosecute For Reaction: Madras HC Quashes FIR For Speech Against Periyar Statue Outside Temple
The Madras High Court has quashed a hate speech case against a Stunt Master in Tamil Cinema as well as the State Secretary of Art and Culture Wing of Hindu Munnani, Kanal Kannan who was accused of hurting religious sentiments.
The accused had filed a petition seeking quashing of a case in which he was facing trial for the alleged offences under Sections 153, 505(1)(b), and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for speech on YouTube against a statue of Periyar in front of Sri Rangam Temple, where more than a lakh of devotees visit daily. The statute had a message on it which denigrates believers.
A Single Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran observed, “From the record, it is clear that the statement found in the plaque of Periyar Statute had provoked the petitioner. The complainant in this case who claims to be the office-bearer of the Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam before filing the complaint ought to have realised that the plaque in the Statute will hurt the feeling of believers in God. Since the Statute is in the front of Hindu Temple, the petitioner being the officer-bearer of Hindu Munani had expressed his grievance against such insulting phrase. Regarding the speech of Laucerus and Muslim country this Court finds that the petitioner speech does not carry any word or expression which will cause hatred or ill-will among the classes.”
The Court also added, "Infact, the display of provocative words commenting believers of God opposite to the Hindu Temple is the cause for the speech and the person, who has provoked the speech cannot take advantage of their provocation and prosecute the petitioner for his reaction".
Senior Advocate G. Karthikeyan represented the petitioner while Government Advocate S. Udaya Kumar represented the respondents.
In this case, as per the prosecution, District Secretary of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam filed a complaint stating that YouTube channel administered by the petitioner/accused under the name of “Mai Chennai360” had uploaded his speech with intent to provoke, riot, and to cause fear to some sections of the public and to induce others to commit an offence against the public tranquillity.
Alleging that his speech on the YouTube Channel had created enmity and hatred between classes, the complainant sought action against him. As per the complaint, the petitioner had expressed that in front of Sri Rangam Temple, where more than a lakh of devotees visit daily, there is a statute which denigrates believers of God. He also allegedly criticised a priest of the Christian community and members of the Islam religion. This according to the complainant needed an action under Sections 153, 505(1)(b), and 505(2) of IPC.
The High Court in the above regard, noted, “The petitioner herein is a Stunt Master in Tamil Cinema. He is also State Secretary, Art and Culture Wing of Hindu Munnani. As per the Arrest Memo, his speech has received 138 likes, 7245 views and 230 comments. Admittedly, after hearing his speech in the You Tube Channel, there had been no disturbance to the public peace or tranquillity; no riot and no promotion of enmity or hatred between classes.”
The Court added that the petitioner’s speech has been gone without any reaction, except the complaint given by the office bearer of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam.
“Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right. After provoking a person religious sentiments and hurting his belief, by calling him as fool, barbarian and rascal, the complainant cannot take umbrage under the Law and try to gag the petitioner from reacting”, it said.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the alleged speech of the petitioner in YouTube heard as a whole, does not attract ingredients to prosecute him under the relevant provisions.
“As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner when the members of other community or his own community had no objection or reacted to his speech, it is a member of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam has given this complaint”, it also noted.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the display of provocative words commenting believers of God opposite to the Hindu Temple is the cause for the speech and the person, who has provoked the speech cannot take advantage of their provocation and prosecute the petitioner for his reaction.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the case against the accused.
Cause Title- V. Kannan @ Kanal Kannan v. State & Anr.
