A Single Judge Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice G. Ilangovan- quashed the complaint filed against Kamal Hasan over a comment that he made in 2017 and while doing so the Court observed that criticism is part and parcel of a free society and it is a democratic right to disclose one’s own thoughts freely. (Kamal Hasan v. Aadhinatha Sundaram)
The Bench held that,
“Criticism is not only the human right, but also democratic right upon which the democracy thrives and society evolves to a new desired polity. Criticism, drawing analogies from the epics or litery works are not uncommon in a free Society.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner/ accused named Kamal Hasan participated in a show telecasted by Puthiya Talaimurai TV Channel and hosted by one Thiru. The host asked a specific question on the increasing violence against women in India, more particularly against women in the Cinema Field, to which Kamal Hasan made a deliberate comment by bringing into the discussion- Hindu Epic Mahabharata. He stated that nothing is surprising about the increasing violence against women in a country which reveres Mahabharatha, which itself depicts a woman being used as collateral for gambling.
The Complainant/ Respondent lodged a complaint against this comment made by Kamal Hasan for not only insulting Hindu Epic Mahabharatha but also hurting his religious sentiments under Section 298 of IPC. The Trial court accepted the complaint and gave direction to the Inspector of Police to make an enquiry into the allegations made in the complaint.
Aggrieved by this the Petitioner filed Criminal Original Petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the proceedings in C.C No.91 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.
Submission by the Petitioner
The Counsel on the behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner has the right to freedom of speech and expression. Only a casual reply or conversation took place during the course of the TV Program.
"It is a basic right of everyone to make a comment and draw analogies and by this process itself arts, literature, and fine arts develop. No citizen got any right to stall the thought process of fellow citizen simply because, he thinks it is wrong."
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court considered all the facts and perused the submissions made by the Petitioner. The Court was of the opinion that for attracting offence section 298 IPC, there must be an intentional insult and in the present case, there was no intention of insulting any community. If at all, it should be taken only as causal communication that took place between the Anchor and the petitioner herein.
The Court looked into the case of Shailabhadra Shan & Others Vs. Swami Krishna Bharati and another wherein it was held that a written article published in a magazine will not constitute an offence under section 298 IPC. Similarly, in Acharya Rajneesh Vs. Naval Thakur & Others- it was observed that that offending words must be used in the presence of the complainant.
The petitioner also contended that the comment made by the petitioner was not directly addressed to the respondent.
"It is a public platform where the opinions are freely expressed. So it was not aimed at any religion, more particularly, the respondent herein."
The Court further held that,
“At no stretch of imagination, this court can come to the conclusion that the views expressed by the petitioner were intended to insult or harm the religious feelings of the respondent herein. But the facts and circumstances of the case shows that the petitioner has not exceeded the freedom speech and expression, which was conferred upon him. Moreover, criticism is part and parcel of the free society. So, I am of the considered view that this complaint is clearly an because of abuse of process of court and it is liable to be quashed.”
Therefore, the Court quashed the private complaint and expressed that criticism is not only a human right but also a democratic right upon which democracy thrives and society evolves to a new desired polity. Criticism, drawing analogies from the epics or litery work- is not uncommon in a free society.
Case Details
Case: - Crl.OP(MD)No.5690 of 2017
Petitioner: - Kamal Hasan
Respondent: - Aadhinatha Sundaram
Counsel for Petitioner: - Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan
Counsel for Respondent: - Mr.J.Sankara Pandian
Judge: Justice G. Ilangovan
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :