A Chennai Court has convicted senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader H. Raja under Sections 153 (provocation with intent to cause riot) and 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for a defamatory and provocative social media post targeting Dravidian reformer Thanthai Periyar. The Court has also sentenced Raja to six months imprisonment and also fine.

Special Judge G Jayavel observed, "An ideology may be acceptable to some persons, and the same may not be suitable or acceptable to some others. For everything, there could be opposition, as it is the rule of nature. Each and every ideology cannot be agreeable to everyone. But it will suffice ot see as to whether the ideology is good for the society, or at least if it is doing certain good to some part of the society. It is needless to state that the ideology of Thanthai Periyar had done a lot of good things to this Country and its people. But still there may be certain area in this ideology, which may not be acceptable by some section of the society and ti is also quite natural conduct of human beings."

Special Public Prosecutor P. Washington Dhanasekaran appeared for the State while Senior Advocate N. Anantha Padmanabhan along with Advocate M. Ramamoorthy appeared for the H. Raja.

"But an ideology should always be opposed by another ideology and not to be opposed by the show of force, provocation, incitements, etc., This court has no hesitation to hold that the message as found on social media is highly condemnable, and it is also highly provocative by nature and has all the potential to disturb public harmony and peace and it may also lead to violence and rioting. Definitely, this type of message will provoke the followers of the ideologist. Such types of venomous messages cannot be accepted in the society governed by the rule of law. No rational human being would accept that the message is the reaction of a prudent man for the ideology propounded by Thanthai Periyar. Hence, the intentions of the person who had posted the message can well be understood by the very message itself," the Court added.

The Court held that the tweet was incendiary, aimed at provoking Periyar’s followers, and capable of disrupting public order. The following observations were made:

1. The message was highly provocative and had the potential to incite violence.

2. The accused failed to deny ownership of the Twitter account or provide evidence that the message was posted by someone else.

3. The accused did not take any corrective actions, such as lodging a complaint or publicly disassociating himself from the post, despite its widespread circulation.

The Court emphasized, “Merely because specialized investigation or scientific evidence is unavailable, it cannot be said that an individual can post venomous messages on social media and escape legal consequences. Such an approach would undermine societal order and public peace.”

It rejected the accused’s arguments, stating that evidence from prosecution witnesses, including the marking of the defamatory message as evidence, proved beyond doubt that the post originated from his Twitter account.

The Court found the accused guilty under Sections 153 and 504 of the IPC, concluding that his actions directly led to public unrest and vandalism. It observed, “An ideology should be opposed by another ideology, not by force, provocation, or incitement. The message posted by the accused crossed all limits and disturbed public harmony.”

The conviction underscores the judiciary’s stance against hate speech and the misuse of social media platforms to provoke violence or disrupt public order.

The accused had allegedly posted a controversial tweet comparing the demolition of Lenin’s statue in Tripura to a call for breaking Periyar’s statues in Tamil Nadu. The tweet referred to Periyar as a "caste fanatic" and called for the removal of his statues. The post led to widespread tensions and the vandalism of a Periyar statue in Tirupathur, Vellore district. The accused denied posting the message, claiming the case was politically motivated and filed as retribution for his opposition to the state government. He also argued that the message was not hate speech but an expression of personal opinion.

By a separate judgment of the some date, the Court also convicted and sentenced Raja under Sections 153, 504 and 509 fo the IPC to six months imprisonment for derogatory tweet against late M. Karunanidhi and his daughter and DMK leader K. Kanimozhi. The Court held in the said case that the social media post is "highly provocative in nature" and that that same caused "tension to the followers" of late Karunanidhi.

Cause Title: The State v. Mr. H. Raja [C.C.No.5 of 2024]

Sukriti Mishra