Sanatana Dharma Row | BJP IT Chief Amit Malviya Moves Madras High Court To Quash FIR For Allegedly Distorting Udayanidhi Stalin’s Remarks

Justice G Ilangovan of the Madurai bench has issued a notice to the police and directed them to respond to the plea.

Malviya has been charged with offences under Section 153, 153A, 504, and 505(1)(b) of the IPC for promoting entimy between groups and causing public mischief based on a complaint filed by KAV Thinakaran, District Organiser of the DMK-Advocate Wing. It was alleged that Malviya had posted the video of Udayanidhi’s speech with the aim of provoking violence between two factions through the dissemination of false information.

In his plea, Malviya claimed that the entire prosecution was politically motivated and absurd in nature. He argued that the FIR was flawed and did not establish any criminal wrongdoing and was launched without a legitimate foundation or without making efforts to assess the credibility of the complainant.

Malviya submitted that he had merely reproduced the Minister’s speech and had nowhere asked people following Sanatana Dharma to start any agitation against the Minister or his party. He stated that merely placing facts before the public about the mindset and narrative being followed by the opposition alliance did not make out any offence. On the other hand, he added that the FIR should have been filed against the Minister for making inflammatory statement at a public stage.

Malviya stressed that the complaint lacked the essential ingredient of mens rea, or a guilty intent could not be attributed to his action as there was no intention to promote class/community hatred but had simply questioned the manner in which the speech was delivered. He added that to attract the offences under Section 153 and Section 505(2) it was essential was there must be promotion of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, linguistic, regional groups or caste and communities. However, he claimed that the complaint did not disclose anything to show that his actions had caused such enmity.

Further, Malviya also submitted that the Minister had not stated that he was defamed by him and thus, a proxy individual did not have any locus to proceed with the complaint.

“The FIR, as it stands, is flawed and appears to have been filed in bad faith, as it does not establish any criminal wrongdoing on the part of the Petitioner. The initiation of these criminal proceedings seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the law. these proceedings have been launched without a legitimate foundation or any effort to assess the credibility of the complainant, seemingly with a hidden agenda aimed at causing undue distress to the Petitioner,” the petition read.

Claiming that a citizen was entitled to make fair comments on issues that impact the public at large, he sought to quash the proceedings as allowing the prosecution would result in undue harassment.

Case Title: Amit Malviya v State

Case No: Crl OP (MD) No. 17575 of 2023