Supreme Court Stays Trial Against Tamil Nadu BJP President K Annamalai In Case Over Alleged Remarks Against Christian Missionary NGO

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta today granted the state BJP president temporary relief in response to his special leave petition challenging a February 8 Madras High Court ruling refusing to quash the trial court proceedings in the hate speech case.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra and Advocate J Sai Deepak represented Annamalai in the Supreme Court, arguing against the proceedings before the trial court.  

Accordingly, the bench issued notice in Annamalai's petition, seeking the complainant, V Piyush's response and directed the matter to be listed for hearing in the week commencing from April 29. In the meantime, the bench directed, there will be a stay on further proceedings before the trial court.

Background

In a YouTube interview, Annamalai allegedly stated that a Christian missionary non-governmental organisation (NGO) was responsible for seeking a ban on firecrackers, a statement that drew significant attention and controversy. Following the circulation of video clippings from the interview on social media, a complaint was filed by V Piyush, an environmentalist, expressing concerns that the remarks could incite hatred between communities.

Undeterred after being initially turned away by authorities, Piyush invoked Section 156(3) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a judicial magistrate in Salem. The judicial magistrate, on finding a prima facie case under Sections 153A and 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, issued summons to Annamalai.

Challenging the summons and the entire proceedings, Annamalai contended that his speeches were expressions of anguish, not intended to promote communal discord. He highlighted the timing of the complaint, filed approximately 400 days after the interview, during which no untoward incidents occurred based on his speech.

The Madras High Court, while dismissing his petition, emphasised the psychological impact of Annamalai's statements, which were deemed to have communal undertones. The court underscored the significance of his position as a prominent leader, stating that his words carried weight and could have a psychological impact on the targeted group. It also noted that the intent to create hatred towards a particular religion was evident in his statements, leading to a prima facie conclusion against him.

Case Details