High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 20.08.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.R.C.No.469 of 2025L.K.Charles Alexander ... PetitionersVs1.The Director General of Police Tamil Nadu Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police Anna Nagar Range, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police Thirumangalam Range, Anna Nagar West, Chennai 101.4. The Inspector of Police V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station, Anna Nagar West, Chennai 101....Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, praying to set aside the order passed by the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore in Crl.MP.NO.2157 of 2025 dated 06.03.2025 further direct the 3rd respondent police to take appropriate action on the petitioner complaint dated 09.01.2025 by registering a FIR.Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2025For Petitioner : Mr. L.K.Charles Alexander( Party-in-person)For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side)ORDER This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order passed in Crl.MP.No.2157 of 2025 dated 06.03.2025 on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, thereby, dismissed the petition filed under Section 175(3) of BNSS. 2. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the 4th respondent. However, the fourth respondent did not take any steps to register the FIR and as such, the petitioner was constrained to submit a representation before the respondents 1 to 3 herein. Even then, there was no action on the complaint lodged by the petitioner. As such, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition for direction under Section 175(3) of BNSS before the concerned Magistrate. 3. On perusal of the complaint, it was alleged that he had seen an interview of Thiru.Seeman, Co-ordinator of Naam Tamilar Katchi on 17-11-2024 on Youtube. During the interview, he had abused the judiciary in a bad manner and described the functions of the Courts in a filthy language and it Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2025has been widely spread in all social media platforms. When a political leader addresses the press, he/she has to convey a message in a dignified and legal manner and he/she should not spread hatred, malice or the message should not disturb the public in any form. He further alleged that the petitioner, being an advocate, respects the judiciary of our country and noted several steps taken by the Government to inform the general public about the importance of the judiciary. While being so, the speech of the political leader is derogatory as against the judiciary. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that there was absolutely no intention on the part of the said political leader to promote enmity between two groups of people as the context, meaning and purpose of message that he wanted to pass does not suggest the same. Therefore, it was observed that, either the offence under Section 153A or Section 505 of IPC shall not be attracted and hence, the petition for direction under Section 175(3) of BNSS was dismissed. It is relevant to extract the speech transcript which is extracted hereunder:-rl;l';fs; jpl;l';fs; bfhz;Ltu ey;y Kot[fs; vLf;fj;jhnd ,e;j kd;w';fs; cUthfpwJ. mg;g[wk; vy;yhUk; ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F ngh ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F ngh vd;why; ghuhSkd;wk; rl;lkd;wk; vjw;F gy;yh';FHp Mlth>/ mijf; fiyj;Jtpl;L ngha;tplntz;aoJ jhnd/ ,J vd;d bfhLikaha; ,Uf;F> MCd;dh ePjpkd;wj;jpw;Fg; ngha;uJ. ePjpkd;wk; brhy;ypLr;rp mg;god;dh mJy ePjp Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2025,Uf;fQqk;y nfl;fpwjw;F>/ njitapy;yd;D brhy;yy. vJy jiyaplDk; ,Uf;Fy jk;gp/ eP';f muR vd;d gz;wP';f. js;sptpl;wP';f/ ePjpkd;wk; brhy;ypLr;rp.rl;lj;ij kjpa[';fs; ePjpkd;wj;jpd; ePjp kPwhjP';f mg;godh tHpna ,y;yhk ,Uf;f ntz;oa[s;sJ/ 4. Thus, it is clear that it would amount to hate speech which attracts the offences under Section 153A and 505 of IPC. The said political leader owes a duty and have to be more responsible while speaking to public. He had uttered words against the judiciary and damaged the decorum of judiciary in front of the general public. He has been continuously making derogatory remarks as against the judiciary and it cannot be accepted at any point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs Union of India reported in 2023 INSC 991 held that hate speeches will attract the offences under Sections 153A and 505 of IPC. It must be immediately acted upon by registering a Suo Motu F.I.R. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the case of Amish Devgan Vs Union of India reported in (2021) 1 SCC 1, that the effect of derogatory speeches made by those in power and authority or the persons of influence, keeping in view their reach, impact and authority they weild on general public or specific class to which they belong, owe a duty and have to be more responsible. The Hon'ble Supreme Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2025Court of India also held in the case of Kaushal Kishor V. State of UP reported in (2023) 4 SCC1 as follows:"251. Every citizen of India must consciously be restrained in speech, and exercise the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) only in the sense that it was intended by the framers of the Constitution, to be exercised. This is the true content of Article 19(1)(a) which does not vest with citizens unbridled liberty to utter statements which are vitriolic, derogatory, unwarranted, have no redeeming purpose and which, in no way amount to a communication of ideas. Article 19(1)(a) vests a multi-faceted right, which protects several species of speech and expression from interference by the State. However, it is a no brainer that the right to freedom speech and expression, in a human-rights based democracy does not protect statements made by a citizen, which strike at the dignity of a fellow citizen. Fraternity and equality which lie at the very base of our Constitutional culture and upon which the superstructure of rights are built, do not permit such rights to be employed in a manner so as to attack the rights of another."5. Thus it is clear that the speech that violates restrictions on freedom of speech is considered unconstitutional, i.e., obscenity, defamation, incitement to violence, child pornography, speech that violates intellectual property law, Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2025true threats, hate speech, sedition and fighting words shall be strictly condemned. In the case on hand, the political party leader had crossed his limits and uttered strong derogatory words against the judiciary. A politician dealing with media has to be responsible and shall abide by the Constitution of India. If there is a violation, the State can impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of Sovereignty and Integrity of India, Security of the State, friendly relations with the foreign nations, Public Order, Decency or Morality, Contempt of Court, Defamation and Incitement of offenses. 6. It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment in the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan Vs Union of India and Others reported in (2014) 11 SCC 477, held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and is extracted hereunder:-“As referred to herein above, the statutory provisions and particularly the penal law provide sufficient remedy to curb the menace of "hate speeches". Thus, person aggrieved must resort to the remedy provided under a particular statute. The root of the problem is not the absence of laws but rather a lack of their effective execution. Therefore, the executive as well as civil society has to perform its role in enforcing the already existing legal regime. Effective regulation of "hate speeches" at all levels is required as the authors of such speeches can be booked under the existing penal law and all the law enforcing agencies must ensure that the existing law is not rendered a dead letter. Enforcement of the aforesaid Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2025provisions is required being in consonance with the proposition "salus reipublicae suprema lex" (safety of the state is the Supreme law)”.7. Therefore, the respondents have the bounden duty to take appropriate action against the person who had made the hate speeches. However, the respondents did not take any steps and also the learned magistrate failed to issue direction under Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. 8. In view of the above, the order passed in Crl.MP.No.2157 of 2025 dated 06.03.2025 on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision stands allowed and the 4th respondent is directed to register the FIR against the accused and proceed in accordance with the law.20.08.2025Index :Yes/NoInternet :Yes/NonrTo1. The XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.2.The Director General of Police Tamil Nadu Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.469 of 20253. The Deputy Commissioner of Police Anna Nagar Range, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police Thirumangalam Range, Anna Nagar West, Chennai 101.5. The Inspector of Police V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station, Anna Nagar West, Chennai 101.6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.nrPage 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2025Crl.R.C.No.469 of 202520.08.2025Page 9 of 9