In a significant judicial intervention that underscores the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the protection of religious sentiments, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has delivered a landmark verdict. On Tuesday, January 20, the Court quashed the First Information Report (FIR) filed against Amit Malviya, the head of the BJP’s IT Cell. The case, which dates back to 2023, was rooted in a political storm ignited by remarks made by Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin regarding Sanatan Dharma.

Justice S. Srimathy, presiding over the matter, did not mince words in her ruling. She characterized the controversial speech delivered by the DMK leader at the “Sanatana Abolition Conference” as unequivocal “hate speech” directed against the Hindu community. The verdict serves as a stinging rebuke to the state's handling of the issue, highlighting a perceived bias in how law enforcement agencies approached the controversy.

Unequal Scales of Justice: The Court’s Observation

The High Court expressed deep concern over what it viewed as a selective application of the law. Justice Srimathy pointed out a troubling paradox: while the legal machinery was swift to book those who reacted to the provocative remarks, it remained motionless against the individual who originally made them.

It is worth recalling that in 2023, the Tiruchy Police had lodged an FIR against Amit Malviya, accusing him of misrepresenting Udhayanidhi Stalin’s call to ‘eradicate Sanatan Dharma.’ However, the Court found this action to be misplaced.

“The courts are questioning the persons who reacted, but are not putting the law in motion against the person who initiated the hate speech. In the present case, no case has been filed against the minister for his hate speech in TN, but some cases have been filed in other states,” Justice Srimathy observed.

The judge further noted that the Deputy Chief Minister’s comments were not merely political rhetoric but a direct affront to a vast majority of the population. “The minister’s remarks amount to hate speech,” she stated firmly.

Targeting the Majority: Analysis of the Speech

The legal proceedings took a closer look at the content of Udhayanidhi Stalin’s address and the demographic it impacted. The Court accepted the submissions from Amit Malviya’s counsel, which argued that the DMK has a long-standing pattern of hostility toward Sanatan Dharma.

Justice Srimathy placed the incident within a broader historical context, tracing the ideological roots of the ruling party. “There is a clear attack on Hinduism by the Dravida Kazhagam, and subsequently, along with the DMK, for the past 100 years, to which the minister belongs. While considering the overall circumstances, it is seen that the petitioner had questioned the hidden meaning of the minister’s speech,” she noted.

The Court concluded that Malviya, as a follower of Sanatan Dharma (a Sanatani), was within his rights to defend his faith. He was not the aggressor but rather a victim of the verbal assault. “The speech of the minister would clearly indicate that it is totally against 80% Hindus, which comes within the mischief of hate speech. The petitioner, who is a Sanatani, is a victim of such hate speech and has only defended the Sanatana Dharma from hate speech. When the minister utters a hate speech, the petitioner’s (act of) opposing the said hate speech cannot be considered as a crime,” the Court ruled.

Furthermore, the judge clarified that Malviya’s response did not incite violence nor did it attempt to create enmity between two competing communities, which are necessary conditions for charges under Sections 153 and 153A of the IPC. Finding no mens rea (criminal intent) on Malviya’s part, the Court quashed the FIR.

Decoding ‘Ozhippu’: The Call for Eradication

A pivotal moment in the judgment was the linguistic dissection of the specific Tamil term used by Udhayanidhi Stalin: ‘Ozhippu’. The defense and the prosecution had sparred over the interpretation of this word. Justice Srimathy provided a definitive analysis, stating that in the context of the speech, the word went far beyond mere opposition.

“The word ‘abolish’ would indicate that some existing thing should not be there. If it is applied to the present case, if Sanatana Dharma should not be there, then the people following Sanatana Dharma should not be there. It means suppression of activities that do not conform to the destroyer’s notion,” the Court explained.

The judge elaborated on the gravity of the term, noting that the Minister explicitly rejected the idea of merely resisting Sanatan Dharma. “To consider the issue [at hand], the alleged speech of the Minister ought to be seen, wherein he said ‘Sanatana Dharma should not be resisted or opposed, but has to be abolished/eradicated’. In Tamil, it is stated not as Sanatana ethirppu (opposing Sanatana), but Sanatana ozhippu (eradicating Sanatana),” the verdict read.

This interpretation led the Court to a chilling conclusion regarding the implications of such rhetoric. Justice Srimathy stated: “The entire case is on the word ozhippu, which is crucial. The word ‘abolish’ would indicate that some existing thing should not be there. If it is applied to the present case, if Sanatana Dharma should not be there, then the people following Sanatana Dharma should not be there. If a group of people following Sanatana Dharma should not be there, then the appropriate word is ‘genocide’. If Sanatana Dharma is a religion, then it is ‘Religicide’. It also means to eradicate the people by following any methods or various methods with diverse attacks on ecocide, factocide, culturicide [cultural genocide]. Therefore, the Tamil phrase Sanatana ozhippu would clearly mean genocide or culturicide. In such circumstances, the post of the petitioner questioning the Minister’s speech would not amount to hate speech,” the judge stated.

Judicial Pain and Administrative Bias

During the hearing, the Court also referenced a previous High Court order from March 2024, which had already categorized the DMK leader’s remarks as hate speech. Justice Srimathy reiterated that the statement did “spew hate against a particular community, the Hindus, and constitute disinformation and hate”.

The proceedings took a tense turn when the Court reviewed the counter-affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer (IO). The IO had attempted to justify the Minister's speech by asking, “The Governor and BJP can speak about Sanathan, then why cannot the Minister speak about Sanathan?”

This attempt to equate political discourse with the eradication of a faith did not sit well with the bench. Expressing that the Court was “pained” by the officer’s stance, Justice Srimathy reprimanded the official for losing neutrality. “The above would clearly indicate the counter has political colour, but unfortunately it is filed by the investigating officer. The officials ought to be apolitical, and taking sides with a political party is reprimandable.”

The Genesis: The 2023 Conference Controversy

To understand the magnitude of this legal battle, one must look back to September 2, 2023. The controversy began when Udhayanidhi Stalin, then Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development, addressed the "Sanatana Abolition Conference" organized by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Forum.

In his address, he drew a direct comparison between Hinduism and contagious diseases. “Mosquitoes, dengue, flu, malaria, corona – we should not oppose these things. They have to be eradicated completely. The same is the case with Santanam (Hinduism). Our first work should be to abolish/eradicate Sanatanam instead of opposing it. So, my appreciation to you all for giving an apt title to the meeting,” Stalin had said.

He did not stop there, taking to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to double down on his views. “Sanatan Dharma is a principle that divides people in the name of caste and religion,” he wrote. Later, he reiterated his stance, claiming, “Uprooting Sanatan Dharma is upholding humanity and human equality…I spoke on behalf of the oppressed & marginalized, who suffer due to the Sanatan Dharma. I spoke on behalf of the oppressed & marginalized, who suffer due to the Sanatan Dharma.”

The subsequent police action, however, targeted the critics. On September 6, 2023, the Tiruchirappalli police filed an FIR against Amit Malviya for allegedly "distorting" Stalin's remarks. Malviya had posted on X: “Udhayanidhi Stalin, son of Tamilnadu CM MK Stalin, and a minister in the DMK Govt, has linked Sanatana Dharma to malaria and dengue… He is of the opinion that it must be eradicated and not merely opposed. In short, he is calling for the genocide of 80% population of Bharat, who follow Sanatan Dharma. DMK is a prominent member of the Opposition block and a long standing ally of the Congress. Is this what was agreed in the Mumbai meet?”

With the High Court’s latest ruling, the narrative has shifted significantly, validating the concerns raised by Malviya and casting a spotlight on the responsibilities of public officials when speaking about religious communities.