Quashing a criminal case registered against BJP IT wing head Amit Malviya over a social media post criticising Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks on eradicating Sanatana Dharma, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday, 20 January 2026, observed that the minister’s comments amounted to hate speech.
Allowing Malviya’s petition, Justice S Srimathy said there had been a sustained attack on Hinduism by the Dravida Kazhagam, later joined by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), over the past 100 years, and that the minister’s speech was directed against Hindus who follow Sanatana Dharma.
“The minister’s remarks amount to hate speech,” the judge said.
The court was hearing a plea challenging an FIR registered by the Tiruchy police after Malviya described Udhayanidhi’s 2023 remarks as a call for genocide. The FIR had been lodged following a complaint that Malviya’s social media post misrepresented the minister’s speech and sought to foment enmity between different sections of society.
Justice Srimathy said the court was pained by the prevailing situation and observed: “The courts are questioning the persons who reacted, but are not putting the law on 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 are filed in other states.”
Referring to submissions made by Malviya’s counsel that leaders of the minister’s party had repeatedly spoken against Sanatana Dharma, the judge cited the actions and speeches of Periyar EV Ramasamy and said: “There is clear attack on Hinduism by the Dravida Kazhagam, and subsequently along with by the DMK, 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.”
The judge further observed, “The speech of the minister would clearly indicate that it is totally against 80% Hindus, which come within the mischief of hate speech. The petitioner who is a sanathani is a victim of such hate speech and has only defended the Sanatana Dharma from hate speech.”
Justice Srimathy also referred to a March 2024 order of the Madras High Court in a writ petition seeking a quo warranto against the minister, noting that the court had held the remarks to be ‘hate speech’.
“When a hate speech is uttered by the minister, the petitioner’s (act of) opposing the said hate speech cannot be considered as a crime,” she said, adding that Malviya had not called for any agitation against the minister or his party.
The judge examined the language used in the minister’s speech delivered at the ‘Sanathan Abolition Conference’ organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association on 2 September 2023 and noted that the key word used was ‘Ozhippu’, meaning ‘abolish’.
Extracting its synonyms, the judge said: “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.”
Therefore, the Tamil phrase ‘Sanatana Ozhippu’ would clearly mean genocide or culturicide, the judge said, holding that Malviya’s post questioning the speech did not amount to hate speech.
The court also reprimanded the police inspector concerned for a statement made in the counter affidavit which read: “The Governor and BJP can speak about Sanathan then why cannot the Minister speak about Sanathan?”
Justice Srimathy said: “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.”
Malviya had been booked by the Tiruchy City Crime Branch under Sections 153, 153A, 504 and 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, based on a complaint lodged by KAV Thinakaran, district organiser of the Tiruchy DMK advocate wing.
In his petition, Malviya denied the allegations and stated that he had merely reproduced the minister’s speech, which was already in the public domain, and expressed his understanding of it by questioning its object and purpose.
Source: The New Indian Express
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
