The Supreme Court, while issuing notice in the plea of Tamil Nadu BJP Leader Annamalai, has put a halt to the proceedings before the trial court concerning alleged remarks made in a YouTube interview against a Christian Missionary NGO.
This NGO had approached the Supreme Court seeking a ban on firecrackers. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, upon reviewing the translated remark, clarified that it does not qualify as hate speech. Notably, the Madras High Court, in its refusal to quash criminal proceedings against K Annamalai, emphasized that the court’s duty is to assess if the statement by a prominent leader has caused silent harm in the psyche of the targeted group, extending beyond immediate physical harm.
The bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta issued a notice returnable in the week commencing April 29, 2024, and concurrently stayed further proceedings before the Trial Court. This interim order was passed after the attention was drawn to a translation at page 60.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra and Advocate J Sai Deepak represented Annamalai. In the YouTube interview, Annamalai asserted that a Christian Missionary NGO had sought a ban on firecrackers from the Apex Court.
Following the sharing of video clippings on social media, Piyush, the respondent, lodged a complaint with the DGP, Home Secretary, and Commissioner of Police, Salem. Concerns were raised about the potential incitement of hatred between communities. However, it was determined that the interview did not breach public peace, and no prima facie case was established.
Subsequently, invoking Section 156(3) and 200 of the CrPC before the Salem Judicial Magistrate, Piyush found a prima facie case under Section 153A and Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC and summoned Annamalai.
Annamalai contested the summons, contending that his speeches expressed anguish. He highlighted that the interview took place in 2022, and the complaint was filed approximately 400 days later, with no untoward incidents during this period based on the speech. The High Court observed that to establish an offense under Section 153A of the IPC, the court must consider Clauses (a) and (b) to Sub-Section (1). Words must either be spoken or written, promoting disharmony, enmity, or hatred between different religious groups likely to disturb public tranquility.
In light of this, the High Court held that the counsel’s submissions prima facie satisfied all the mentioned ingredients, indicating a clear intent to create hatred towards a particular religion. The statements, made by a person of stature with a significant impact on the masses, prima facie had a psychological impact on the targeted group.
(With inputs from Verdictum)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.