On 23 April 2025, the Madras High Court initiated suo motu proceedings against DMK Forest Minister Ponmudy following his making derogatory remarks on Vaishnavism and Saivism. Justice Anand Venkatesh directed the Registry to initiate writ proceedings against the Minister and present the matter before the Chief Justice for further action. The court observed that the Minister’s speech appeared to constitute hate speech, potentially violating various sections of the BNS 2023.
The court emphasized that the Minister’s remarks were not only disrespectful to women but also deeply insulting to the religious beliefs of Vaishnavites and Saivites, who represent the two major Hindu sects in Tamil Nadu. The bench noted that the speech, on the surface, appeared to be laced with contempt for both groups and was laced with obscenities that injured the sentiments of their followers.
The court stated, “At first glance, these remarks are highly disrespectful to women and seem intentionally aimed at inciting animosity toward the two major Hindu sects—Vaishnavism and Saivism. Beyond their indecent tone, the comments also deeply offend the religious sentiments of Vaishnavites and Saivites.”
It also criticized the state police for their inaction, stating that their failure to act against the Minister, despite previous court orders, was distressing. The court emphasized its duty to ensure that the state police adhere to Supreme Court directives concerning hate speech, asserting a zero-tolerance policy towards such offenses.
The court noted, “This court observed that the Minister had acknowledged making the statement and was subsequently removed from his position. Yet, the police, whose duty it is to address hate speech, took no action. This ongoing inaction is deeply troubling. As a constitutional authority, this court has a responsibility to ensure that the Tamil Nadu police comply with the Supreme Court’s directives on hate speech. When it comes to such matters, there is zero tolerance.”
On 17 April 2025, the court had directed the state government to register an FIR against Minister Ponmudy for his remarks. The court had warned that failure to do so would compel it to take suo motu action. The judge emphasized that individuals in positions of power should exercise responsibility and refrain from making divisive statements.
In response, Senior Advocate P. Wilson, representing the Tamil Nadu Police, informed the court that preliminary inquiries had been conducted into two complaints against the Minister, both of which were closed after finding no prima facie case. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing Ponmudy, argued that the speech was made in a closed meeting and only a truncated version was made public, and that the Minister was discussing events from around 40 years ago, suggesting no case had been made out. The court recorded these submissions but maintained its stance that the Minister’s speech was derogatory and ordered accordingly.
(With inputs from Live Law)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.