Madras High Court
Kasthuri vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 14 November, 2024
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19526 of 2024
Kasthuri ... Petitioner/
Accused
Vs.
The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by, the Inspector of Police,
Thirunagar Police Station,
Madurai.
Crime No. 612/2024. ... Respondents
Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of
her arrest in Crime No.612 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Sriram
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Bhaskaran
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
ORDER
This petition is filed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of her arrest in Crime No.612 of 2024 on the file of the respondent
police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant
while watching You Tube in his mobile phone, happened to see a video
where the petitioner was giving a speech at a Brahmin's meet. In that
speech, the petitioner is said to have made disparaging remarks against
the womenfolk belonging to a particular community. Aggrieved by the
same, the complaint was given before the respondent police and based on
the same, the FIR came to be registered in Crime No.612 of 2024 on
05.11.2024 for offences under Sections 294(b), 196(1)(a), 197(1)(c), 352
and 353 (3) of BNS 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology
Act, 2000.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
3.Heard Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.R.Bhaskaran, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a social activist, political
commentator and a cine-actress. She was expressing her views in a
particular meeting as to how the Brahmin community had been denied
the identity of “Tamizhian” and whereas some of the leaders belonging
to political parties who actually are Telugu speaking people had come to
Tamil Nadu only 300 years ago and are proclaiming themselves to be
Tamizhian. Hence, this speech made by the petitioner must be
understood only with this background and bits and pieces cannot be
lifted from that speech and it should not be given a convoluted meaning.
The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the case in hand has arisen
more out of political vendetta since after the speech was delivered and
the petitioner was informed that some of the Telugu speaking persons
were wounded, the petitioner posted a twitter message on 05.11.2024 and
explained her stand and also expressed her regret for any inadvertent ill
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
feeling.
5.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the case
is borne out by the records and the recorded version of the speech given
by the petitioner is available in the public sphere and therefore, there is
no necessity to subject the petitioner to custodial interrogation. That
apart, in order to cause more hardship to the petitioner, multiple First
Information Reports are registered against the petitioner for the same
incident.
6.Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the speech made by
the petitioner was intentionally directed against a particular community
and if such speech is permitted, it will cause communal disharmony and
hatred among two communities. As such, the petitioner has admitted that
she has made such speech and hence, all the offences are made out.
Hence, the learned Additional Advocate General sought for the dismissal
of the petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
7.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made
on either side and materials available on record.
8.This Court also had the advantage of listening to the
alleged controversial speech made by the petitioner and the portion of the
speech over which the entire controversy has arisen is transcribed
hereunder:
“uhIhTf;F $l Nrh;j;Jf; nfhz;l me;jg;Gw
kfsph;fSf;F Nrit nra;a te;jth;fs; njYq;F
NgRgth;fs; vy;yhk; jkpoh;fs; ,dk; vd;W nrhy;Yk;
nghOJ”
9.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended
that the allegations made in the complaint is a clear misunderstanding of
what was spoken by the petitioner in the meeting. The petitioner has not
made any allegations against the womenfolk and what was stated by the
petitioner is attempted to be twisted to suit the needs of the vested
interest.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
10.On carefully considering the controversial statement
made by the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner has described the
Telugu speaking people as the one's who came to Tamil Nadu to serve
the wives and concubines living in a quarters reserved for them
(Andhapuram) of a King.
11.It is true that the controversial statement which has now
caused confusion does not directly attribute anything against the
womenfolk belonging to the community. However, this statement made
by the petitioner has painted all Telugu speaking people in a bad light.
12.Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that empowers
individuals to express their thoughts, beliefs and opinions. However,
with this power comes great responsibility. The ability to speak freely
should not be misused to spread hatred or cause communal disharmony.
It is essential to recognise the impact of our words can have on
individuals and communities, and to use our voices to uplift rather than
demean.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
13.I had an occasion to deal with the scope of hate speech in
K.Annamalai v. V.Piyush in Crl.O.P.No.27142 of 2023, which was
delivered on 08.02.2024. After considering the entire law on the point, it
was held as follows:
“33. In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union
of India, (2014) 11 SCC 477 the Supreme Court
observed that even the psychological impact that
will be caused in the mind of the recipient of the
message can be the basis for deciding hate speech.
Hate speech can lay the ground work, which, at a
later point of time, can lead to discrimination,
ostracism, violence and in the most extreme cases,
genocide. History has taught us what happened to
the Jews during the Second World War, which
initially started as a hate speech by Hitler and
ultimately ended as a genocide.
34. In the considered opinion of this Court,
psychological impact on an individual or a group
can also be brought within the meaning of
definition of the term 'hate speech'. This is an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
important facet in our understanding of what
constitutes hate speech, as also to understand the
scope of Section 153A of the IPC. The decision in
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan, supra, moved from the
traditional approach, which expected a gross
physical act to a modern approach with a
psychological impact. At the same time, the
distinction between free speech and hate speech
remains relevant.
35. The distinction between the two
came to the fore in Patricia Mukhim v. State of
Meghalaya, (2021) 15 SCC 35. This was a case
where one Patricia Mukhim, who is an important
social worker in Meghalaya, requested that the non
tribal population of Meghalaya also requires more
protection. This message that was sent by her
through the facebook incited communal tension.
The Supreme Court held that the statement made by
Patricia Mukhim in the facebook post did not have
any intent to promote any class/community hatred
and that the State of Meghalaya was requested to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
take care of the interest of the non-tribals also in
the State. This post was held to be falling within the
scope of free speech, which cannot be stifled by
registering criminal cases apart from holding that
it could be branded as a hate speech. This tendency
to misuse a face book post or statement made as a
hate speech cannot be ruled out and therefore, the
courts must be very careful before coming to a
conclusion as to whether the speech made is a free
speech or a hate speech.
...
52. The twitter handle, in which, the
shortened and focussed version has been posted is
a permanent data that is available. At an
appropriate time/moment this data can be
circulated and the ticking bomb will have its
desired effect at that point of time. In other words,
the concept of looking at hate speeches qua the
result it yields, after such statements are made,
should never be understood in its traditional way
and the Courts have to necessarily take into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
consideration the fact that such content has a
permanent data available and it can be used at any
time to suit the situation. Hence, the psychological
impact of a statement made by a popular leader
must not be merely confined by testing it only to
immediate physical harm and it is the duty of the
Court to see if it has caused a silent harm in the
psych of the targeted group, which, at a later point
of time, will have their desired effect in terms of
violence or even resulting in genocide. Therefore,
the non-physical impact of the statements made will
also come within the scope of Section 153A of the
IPC.
53. A Judge, who decides these cases,
cannot be sitting in a pulpit nor would ignore what
is happening in the society during the relevant
point of time. A Judge, who is holding a
Constitutional position, has made his oath on The
Constitution of India and therefore, he is duty
bound to ensure that the basic features of The
Constitution and the fabric of this country are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
attempted to be destroyed.”
14.When we hold the microphone – whether literally or
metaphorically, we must be aware of the influence we wield. Our words
can inspire change, foster understanding or conversely create division
and animosity. In the case in hand, this Court has to see the impact that
will be created by the speech made by the petitioner against the Telugu
speaking people and what is attempted to be projected is that these
people entered Tamil Nadu to perform a menial job and it is these people
who are now claiming themselves to be Tamizhian.
15.The speech made by the petitioner clearly hovers around
hate speech. As held in the above judgment, the statements made by the
petitioner is now available in the social media and it can act like a ticking
bomb, which will wait to burst at the appropriate point of time by
creating violence as among the Tamil and Telugu speaking people. A
speaker must always think twice before addressing such issues in the
public platform and particularly, in the social media era since what is
said becomes a permanent record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
16.The speeches must not be made to play to the gallery and
more responsibility must be shown. The petitioner probably was able to
get the applause when she made this speech but what she had spoken had
actually affected the sentiments of the Telugu speaking people. Even
though the complaint states that the speech was directed against the
womenfolk of the particular community, on carefully listening to the
speech, it is seen that the entire Telugu speaking people have been
demeaned. In a diverse country like ours, there must be zero tolerance
whenever such speech is made by demeaning or insulting particular
group of people based on their language.
17.On carefully reading the message that was tweeted by the
petitioner, there is no genuine attempt to apologize for using such a bad
and intemperate language and the petitioner is only attempting to justify
her speech. In cases of this nature, the larger public interest will weigh in
the minds of the Court. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of
the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2011 (1) SCC 694, where the Apex Court after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
considering all the earlier decisions gave certain guidelines while
considering an anticipatory bail petition. One such consideration that was
insisted upon is in cases where the impact of the grant of anticipatory
bail, particularly, in case of magnitude affecting a large number of
people. This will depend upon gravity of the offence. The case in hand
falls under this category.
18.The petitioner claims to be an educated and public
spirited person but what has fallen out of the mouth of the petitioner is
highly pejorative. Courts must be more stringent when such demeaning
statements are made by such persons since they are setting a bad role
model for others to follow.
19.A message must be sent to all concerned that such
fissiparous tendencies while making speeches will not be tolerated. Only
if that is done, such recurrence can be prevented in future and people will
think twice before making such reckless statements.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
20.A strong message must be sent by the court to the effect
that whenever such scurrilous and derogatory statements are made by any
person bordering hate speech and thereafter he is caught and prosecuted
in accordance with law, tendering apology as a matter of course to escape
the consequence cannot be entertained. If it is handled with kid gloves,
anyone will make such reckless statements and tender an apology to
escape the consequence. One has to own up the responsibility. The words
uttered are like the arrow which has already left the bow and it will reach
its destination and cause the damage and hence a halfhearted apology
will not cure the damage that has already happened. Everyone must be
more conscious while uttering a word from a public platform and must
necessarily face the consequence if irresponsible statements bordering
hate speech are made.
21.Before I conclude, I thought it fit to recall a poem which
runs thus:
“A careless word, like an arrow let fly,
Strikes deep and leaves scars, no chance to deny.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
Once loosed from the bow, it cannot retract—
Choose wisdom in speech, lest we suffer the impact.”
22.To conclude, this Court wants to emphasize the fact that
as we navigate the landscape of communication, let us commit to using
our voices for good. Wield your words with care and grace. Let us try for
dialogue that fosters understanding and compassion rather than division
and hatred. By doing so, we honor the true essence of freedom of speech:
a tool for unity and progress.
23.In the result, this petition stands dismissed.
14.11.2024
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
PKN
To
1.TheInspector of Police,
Thirunagar Police Station,
Madurai.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
PKN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19526 of 2024
Dated: 14.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
