The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court held that the public speech delivered by Udhayanidhi Stalin at a conference in September 2023 amounted to hate speech and carried genocidal implications, while quashing a criminal case registered against Amit Malviya for questioning the remarks on social media.

The order was pronounced on 20 January 2026 by Justice S Srimathy in Crl.OP.(MD) No.17575 of 2023.

Speech Delivered at “Sanathan Abolition Conference”

The case arose from a speech made by Udhayanidhi Stalin on 2 September 2023 at a conference titled Sanathan Abolition Conference, organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association.

The Court recorded that Udhayanidhi had stated, “… only a few things can be resisted. Some have to be eliminated. In that sense, even Sanathan must be eliminated. We cannot resist mosquito, dengue, coronavirus. They must be eliminated. In that sense, even Sanathana must be eliminated…”

The Court noted that the speech drew an analogy between diseases such as coronavirus, dengue fever and malaria and Sanathana Dharma, and spoke of the need for their elimination.

FIR Against Social Media Post

Following the speech, Amit Malviya shared a video of the address on social media and questioned whether the statement amounted to a call for genocide. An FIR was registered against him under Sections 153, 153A and 505(1)(b) IPC, alleging that his post distorted the minister’s speech and promoted enmity between groups.

Allegations Against the Petitioner

The prosecution case, as stated by the defacto complainant, was that the petitioner shared a video of Udhayanidhi’s speech on his X account with malicious intent to provoke violence between two factions by disseminating false information.

The Court recorded that the complainant alleged the petitioner posted the video on 02.09.2023 stating, “The minister has linked Sanatana Dharma to Malaria and Dengue… He thinks that it must be eradicated and not merely opposed. In short, he calls for the Genocide of 80% of the population of Bharat, who follow Sanatana 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 meeting?”

Clarificatory Tweet by Udhayanidhi Stalin

The Court recorded that Udhayanidhi issued a clarificatory tweet in response, stating: “I never called for the Genocide of the people who are following Sanatana Dharma…uprooting Sanathana Dharma is upholding humanity and human equity. I stand firmly by every word I have spoken … I believe that Sanathana Dharma is responsible for many social evils like spread of diseases like COVID-19, Dengue and malaria by mosquitoes”

Based on this, the complainant alleged that the petitioner intentionally misrepresented the speech with the aim of fomenting animosity among segments of society. The petitioner contended that it was Udhayanidhi who had made a firm statement calling for eradication of Sanathana Dharma and that such a statement was of a grave nature with the potential to inflame hatred and encourage violence against the majority citizens of Bharat who follow Sanathana Dharma.

The petitioner stated that he had merely extracted the speech already in the media, expressed his understanding of it, and questioned its object and purpose, and that the FIR was false, absurd and politically motivated.

State’s Counter and Investigation Claims

The State filed a detailed counter stating that the minister had said the topic was correctly titled as “Sanathana Ozhippu” instead of “Sanathana Ethirppu”, and that Sanathan ought to be eradicated as it was against equality and social justice.

The counter alleged that the petitioner shared a “twisted video” and stated: “Udhayanidhi Stalin, son of Tamil Nadu, CM, M.K.Stalin and Minister in the DMK Government has linked Sanathana Dharma to malaria and Dango. He is of the opinion that it must be eradicated and not merely opposed. In short, he is calling for genocide of 80% population of Bharat who follow Sanathan Dharma. DMK is a prominent member of the opposition and a long-standing alley of the Congress. Is this what was agreed in the Mumbai meet?”

The counter further recorded Udhayanidhi’s reply, stating, “He never called for Genocide of the people who are following Sanathana Dharma. Sanathana Dharma is a principle that divides people in the name of caste and religion. Uprooting Sanathana Dharmais upholding humanity and human equity. I stand firmly by every word I have spoken. I spoke on behalf of the oppressed and marginalized and who suffers due to the Sanathana Dharma. I am ready to present the extensive writings of Periyar and Ambedkar, who conducted in depth research on Sanathana Dharma and its negative impact on society in any form. Let me reiterate the crucial aspect of my speech. I believe like the spread of diseases like Covid-19, Dengue and Malaria by mosquitoes that Sanathana Dharma is responbible for many social evils. I am prepared to confront any challenges that come my way whether in the Court of Law or people’s court. Stop spreading fake news.”

The State alleged that despite this explanation, the petitioner continued spreading fake news, including posts comparing the minister’s remarks to Hitler’s characterisation of Jews.

Court’s Analysis of “Sanathana Ozhippu”

The Court held that the entire case turned on the word “Ozhippu”: “The entire case is on the word “Ozhippu” which is crucial and the said word “Ozhippu”, can be translated as “abolish” (as per the counter filed by the respondent and even as per prosecution the equivalent translation for Ozhippu is abolish). The synonyms for the word “abolish” is “put an end to, do away with, get rid of, scrap, end, stop, terminate, eradicate, eliminate, exterminate, destroy, annihilate, genocide, stamp out, obliterate,
wipe out, extinguish, quash, expunge, extirpate, annual, cancel, invalidate, nullify, overturn, discontinue, remove, withdrawn, retract, countermand, excise, drop, jettison, vitiate, abrogate, axe, ditch, junk, scrub, dump, chop, give something the chop, knock, something on the head, deracinate etc.”

The Court further stated, “All the words stated supra would indicate that the word “abolish” would indicate “that some existing thing should not be there. If it is applied to the present case, if Sanathana Dharma should not be there, then the people
following Sanathana Dharma should not be there. It means suppression of activities that do not conform to the destroyer’s notion. Then the above synonym words stated supra are applicable. If a group of people following Sanathana Dharma should not be there, then the appropriate word is “genocide”. If Sanathana 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).”

The Court held that, “Therefore, the Tamil phrase “Sanathana 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.”

Reference to Earlier Writ Proceedings

The Court referred to earlier writ petitions challenging the same speech and quoted the High Court’s findings:

“The individual respondents have undoubtedly acted contrary to Constitutional principles and ideals and their statements amount to disinformation and hate against members of a specific community.”

And said, “The offending statements spew hate against a particular community, the Hindus and constitutes dis/ misinformation.”

Rejection of State’s Instigation Argument

The Court rejected the State’s argument that the petitioner’s post instigated 80% of the population against 20%, stating: “If such an argument is accepted, then it would amount to stating that the minister is instigating the 20% population against the 80% population. Hence such an argument is absurd and the same rejected.”

The Court further said, “The party which the Minister belongs have repeatedly stated several things against the Sanathan Dharma, hence the overall circumstances leading to the present case ought to be taken for consideration.”

Citing another case, the Court said, “As held in the above case the overall circumstances ought to be taken into account. While considering the overall circumstances, there are records to show that there are specific incidents of attack on Hinduism and caste Hindus, like cutting the tuft hair, Janeu, adorning Janeu to pigs etc. Further he had garlanded the Hindu God “Lord Ram” with slippers and Hindu Idol Lord Ganesha with slippers and had broken several such Ganesha idols. Several complaints were preferred but most of the complaints were not acted upon except one or two complaints.”

The Court added, “Therefore, it is evident that there is clear attack on Hinduism by the Dravida Kazhagam and subsequently along with by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, for the past 100 years, to which the Minister belongs. While considering the overall
circumstances, it is seen the petitioner had questioned the hidden meaning of the minister’s speech. Hence by overall consideration the speech of the minister would clearly indicate it is totally against 80% Hindus, which come within the mischief of hate speech. The minister hails from the above legacy. Therefore,
based on the above background the speech of the minister is hate speech only. The petitioner who is a sanathani is a victim of such hate speech and has only defended the Sanathana Dharma from the hate speech.”

Court Slams Comparison With Historical Figures

Noting the personalities mentioned in the counter presented by Udhayanidhi’s side, the Court said, “Interestingly, it is stated in the counter that the respondents have referred to certain personalities and have stated that those personalities have
also stated against Sanathan Dharma.”

“The first person that was referred in Mahatma Gandhi. In his Autobiography Mahatma Gandhi has declared himself
a Sanathani Hindu and has claimed that he had read Bhagavat Gita, Ramayan, Mahabharat, Manusmriti and stated his core virtue is ahimsa. Hence Mahatma Gandhi is not against Sanathana Dharma.”

“The next person referred is Kamarajar, who was devout Hindu who often sang bhajans of Lord Murugan and his connection with the religion is personal and individual. Hence Kamarajar is not against Sanathana Dharma.”

“The next person referred is Buddha, who was born in Hindu family, but he criticized some of the Vedic practices and encouraged soul liberation path without idol worship, which is
highest form of spiritual path. Buddha propagated Vipassana Meditation a form of meditation comes under Saivism. Hence Buddha is not against Sanathana Dharma.”

“The next person referred is Ramanujar who is the proponent of
Vishishtadvaita philosophy and uttered the Hindu mantra “Om Namo Narayanaya” openly so that all people are benefited by it, thereby welcomed everyone to attain liberation, hence he is cornerstone of Sanathana Dharma. Hence Ramanujar is not against Sanathana Dharma.”

“The next person referred is Vallalar, who hailed from Saivite philosophy and blended with more emphasis on compassion for all living beings including animals, opposed slaughtering of animal, emphasized liberation of soul through “arulperumjothi” (burning lamp). Hence Vallalar is not against Sanathana Dharma.”

“The above persons practiced some form of Sanathana Dharma and recommended the same. They stated to leave or shed unwanted things and practice Sanathan Dharma to attain
liberation. The respondents are under the impression that since they recommended to leave or shed the unwanted things, they are against Sanathana Dharma, which is clear dis/misinformation. Except E.V. Ramasamy @ Periyar, none of them had uttered against Sanathana Dharma. Hence the counter has stated incorrect information.”

“As held in the order dated 06.03.2024 in WP.Nos. 29203, 29204 & 29205 of 2023 which was filed for issuance of writ of quo warranto, the Minister and others involved in the said conference and the defacto complainant are dis/misinformed.”

Findings on Selective Action and Police Conduct

The Court made strong observations on selective prosecution: “This Court with pain records the prevailing situation that the person who initiates the hate speech are let scot-free, but the persons who reacted for the hate speech are facing the wrath of the law.”

It further recorded: “In the present case, no case has been filed against the minister for his hate speech in State, but some cases are filed in the other States.”

The Court also criticised the investigating officer’s counter, which stated: “The Governor and BJP can speak about the Sanathan then why cannot the Minister speak about the Sanathan?”

On this, the Court observed: “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 political party is reprimandable.”

Final Conclusion and Order

After analysing statutory provisions and Supreme Court precedents, the Court held: “By overall consideration the speech of the minister would clearly indicate it is totally against 80% Hindus, which come within the mischief of hate speech.”

It further stated: “Rather the minister speech would attract the above provisions.”

The Court concluded that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process of law and ordered: “the impugned FIR is quashed.”

Accordingly, the criminal original petition was allowed and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.