Tendering Apology As A Matter Of Course To Escape Consequences Of Hate Speech Cannot Be Entertained: Madras High Court

Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that if such matters are handled without seriousness, any person could make reckless statements and tender apology to escape the consequences. The court emphasized that a person had to own up to his responsibility and a half-hearted apology could not cure the damage already done by the persons' actions.

“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,” the court observed.

The court added that though Kasthuri claimed to be an educated and public spirited person, what she had said was highly pejorative. The court added that in such cases, larger public interest must weigh in the minds of the court and it should be more stringent as the persons are setting a bad role model for others to follow. The court added that the fissiparous tendencies should not be tolerated as only then such recurrences can be prevented and people would think twice before making reckless statement.

The complaint against Kasthuri was that while attending a Brahmin's meet, she had made disparaging remarks against the womenfolk belonging to a particular community. An FIR was thus registered for offences under Section 294(b), 196(1)(a), 197(1)(c), 352 and 353 (3) of BNS along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Fearing arrest, Kasthuri had filed for anticipatory bail.

Before the court, Kasthuri contended that she had expressed her views 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. Kasthuri claimed that her speech was taken as bits and pieces and that the case had arisen out of political vendetta. She also informed the court that she had apologised for the remarks and there was no necessity for subjecting her to custodial interaction.

On going through the contents of the Speech, the court noted that Kasthuri had described the Telugu speaking people as the one's who had come to Tamil Nadu to serve the wives and concubines of a King. The court noted that the speech painted all Telugu speaking people in a bad light.

The court highlighted that freedom of speech and expression came with great responsibility and the ability to speak freely should not be used to cause communal disharmony. The court added that this freedom should be used for the upliftment of the community rather than to demean. The court stressed that when holding a microphone, one must be aware that his words could influence and that our words could inspire change, foster understanding or conversely create division and animosity.

“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,” the court said.

The court thus noted that Kasthuri's speech hovered around hate speech and acted like a ticking bomb waiting to burst at appropriate time by creating violence among the Tamil and Telugu speaking people. The court added that while Kasthuri might have received applause for her speech when it was made, what she had spoked had affected the sentiments of the Telugu speaking community. The court stressed that such speech, which demeaned or insulted a particular group of people based on their language had zero tolerance in a diverse country like India.

The court also opined that there was no genuine attempt by Kasthuri to apologise for using such ban and intemperate language and instead she had attempted to justify her speech. Thus, the court was not inclined to grant her anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.A.K.Sriram Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.R.Bhaskaran Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 443

Case Title: Kasthuri v The State

Case No: Crl OP (MD) 19526