Madras High Court Quashes Case Against AIADMK Leader C Ve Shanmugam For Comments Against MK Stalin, Other DMK Ministers

Justice G Jayachandran noted that the alleged comments made by Shanmugam did not cause any disturbance to the harmony nor affected the public tranquillity. The court also noted that the complaints were filed 40 days after the alleged speeches were made which itself would show that no untoward incident was reported due to the alleged speech. The court observed that though the utterances were unparliamentary, it would not attract the offences alleged against Shanmugam.

“In the case in hand, the petitioner herein has participated in the hunger strike and had made certain utterance pointing out the inaction and lapse of the Government in general in which he has uttered certain words which are unparliamentary, though he is a sitting Member of the Parliament. However, if those utterance no way attract the ingredient of the offences under Sections 153A, 504, 505(1)(b) and 506(1) of IPC, the complaint deserves to be quashed,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by C.Ve Shanmugam to quash the cases against him. In 2022, while participating in a hunger strike organised by his party, Shanmugam had allegedly made some remarks regarding the inaction of the state for which a case was registered under Sections 153A, 504, 505(1)(b) and 506(1) of the IPC.

Seeking to quash this case, Shanmugam contended that he was being maliciously victimised for being vociferous against the ruling party. He submitted that the offence alleged will not get attracted as it lacked the necessary ingredients. He argued that registration of a case would defeat his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the constitution. He added that expressing dissent for inaction of the government could not be seen as inciting violence or provoking enmity between different groups.

The State opposed this plea and submitted that Shanmugam, being a sitting Member of the Parliament and a former Minister had not maintained decorum or dignity of his office. It was informed that during the hunger strike, Shanmugam, along with some others had used filthy language against other Ministers and the Chief Minister of the State. It was submitted that this provocative speech had insulted and provoked the members of the DMK party and created ill-will between the groups.

The court however noted that the complaint was registered by a member of the DMK party after consultation with the party members and was not one by an affected public servant. The court added that the contents of the speech would show that Shanmugan waned to highlight the alleged inefficiency of the ruling party and the same would not attract the offenses.

Thus, the court allowed the petition and quashed the cases against Shanumugam.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. K. M. D. Muhilan, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 311

Case Title: C. Ve Shanmugam v State

Case No: Crl.O.P.No16048 of 2023