Supreme Court's 'Reality Check' In Annamalai Case Should Act As A Wake Up Call To DMK Government

The Supreme Court on 26 February stayed the trial in a case of 'hate speech' filed against Tamil Nadu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chief K Annamalai for his comments in a YouTube interview stating that it was a Christian NGO that had first filed the case against firecrackers in the top court.

The Supreme Court bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta held that on the face of it, the remarks do not constitute an offence under Section 153 A of the IPC and issued notice in the matter.

Section 153 A of the IPC deals with offences that promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth and residence. People found guilty could be fined, imprisoned for a duration upto three years or both.

The case was registered after a complaint by activist V Piyush at a magistrate's court in Salem. Annamalai had approached the Madras High Court seeking it to be quashed.

Refusing to quash the case, Justice N Anand Venkatesh of the Madras HC, who has been in the news recently, had said, "From the speech of the petitioner, it is unmistakable that he was attempting to portray a calculated attempt made by a Christian Missionary NGO, which is funded internationally, to destroy Hindu culture."

It also whips up a communal fervour when he says "we are all running to the Supreme Court to counter this."

"The public was, therefore, led to believe that Christians are out to finish off Hindus and that 'we' (in this context Hindus) were running to the Supreme Court to defend it. A petition filed in the interests of the environment was suddenly converted into a vehicle for communal tension.”

Reacting to the verdict, publisher and political commentator Badri Seshadri, in a post on X (formerly Twitter), wrote that the “recklessness” with which the Tamil Nadu police file Section 153 and Section 153 A had to be challenged by someone, and he hoped that the Supreme Court would show the Tamil Nadu police its place.

Seshadri had been arrested in July 2023 for his comments on Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud’s remarks during a Supreme Court hearing on Manipur, after a complaint by an advocate.

Further, he stated that his own challenge on this issue would come up shortly.

Seshadri’s comments have brought back attention to the fact that the said section has been applied in a number of arrests in the state, especially of those belonging to the BJP or its supporters, even in situations where they are not likely to be applicable.

Among those against whom Section 153 A was invoked are Seshadri himself and BJP state secretary S G Suryah.

Suryah had erroneously mentioned that Pennadam municipality, where a sanitation worker had allegedly died after being forced to clean a drain with human faeces, was located in Madurai district.

The other sections often invoked by the police in such arrests include Section 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and Section 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) along with provisions of the IT Act. They are punishable with imprisonment upto two and three years respectively or fine or both.

Of these, Sections 153 A and 505 are non-bailable.

The Supreme Court's remarks should serve as a stark wake-up call, compelling the Tamil Nadu police and the DMK government to deeply reflect before resorting to draconian measures and conducting such arrests.