Person Whose Actions Provoke Speech Cannot Take Advantage Of Such Provocation And Prosecute Others For Their Reaction: Madras High Court

Justice G Jayachandran noted that the statue contained provocative words against believers which was the cause of Kannan's speech and thus the person who provoked the speech could not seek prosecution for a reaction to his own provocation.

“In fact, the display of provocative words commenting believers of God opposite to the Hindu Temple is the cause for the speech and the person, who has provoked the speech cannot take advantage of their provocation and prosecute the petitioner for his reaction,” the court said.

Kannan was charged under Sections 153, 505(1)(b), and 505(2) of IPC on the complaint of one Kumaran, District Secretary of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam. Kumaran had alleged that Kannan, in his YouTube channel, had uploaded a speech criticizing the erection of a statue denigrating believers of God in front of a Hindu Temple. Kannan had allegedly also criticized the Christian community and members of the Islam religion. Thus, claiming that his speech was provocative and against public tranquility, the complaint was filed.

Senior Advocate Karthikeyan, appearing for Kannan questioned the locus of Kumaran to file the complaint. He argued that when the complaint was not from members of the Christian or Muslim communities against whom the alleged speech was made, the police should not have registered the complaint.

Karthikeyan also argued that the statue erected outside the temple had the words “one who believes in God is a fool, one who worships in God is a barbarian and one who propagates God is a rascal” which was provocative and for which the police should have taken action. He added that instead of taking action against the organization that had installed the statue with the above words, they had registered the complaint against Kannan who spoke about the hurt and ill-will caused by such an act.

Government Advocate Uday Kumar on the other hand submitted that Kannan's speech affects the faith of persons from other religions. It was submitted that the right conferred under Article 25 of the Constitution had been injured by Kannan's provocative speech.

The court noted that after uploading the speech on YouTube, there had been no disturbance to public peace or tranquility, no riot, or no promotion of enmity between classes. The court further observed that before installing the statue, the members of the Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, of which the defacto complainant was a member, should have realized that the plaque on the statue would hurt the sentiments of the believers.

"Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right. After provoking a person religious sentiments and hurting his belief, by calling him as fool, barbarian and rascal, the complainant cannot take umbrage under the Law and try to gag the petitioner from reacting," the court observed.

The court noted that Kannan's speech did not carry any word or expression that would cause hatred or ill-will among the classes and he had only expressed his grievance against such an insulting phrase. Thus, noting that the alleged speech sis not attract the ingredients to prosecute Kannan, the court allowed his plea and quashed the criminal proceedings against him.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Karthikeyan Senior Counsel for M/s A. Jagadeeswari

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. S. Udaya Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 377

Case Title: V.Kannan @ Kanal Kannan v State

Case No: Crl. O.P.No.26311 of 2023