'Voice Of The Oppressed Not Meant To Be Criminalised': Madras HC Quashes FIR Against Director Pa. Ranjith Over Comments On Chola Empire

While quashing the suo moto FIR registered in Thirupananthal Police Station for offences under Sections 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot) and 153-A(i)(a) IPC (promoting enmity between different groups by words on the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), Justice G. Ilangovan made the following observations:

"It is also equally seen that comments were raised for and against the views expressed by the public speech about the caste system that has been stated to be introduced by Chola era. By going through the History of Chola era as found in the stones, inscriptions, copper plates etc, views have been made by historians that casteism was prevailing during Chola era. Police cannot take action against those historians for having made such comments. The main purpose of the history is to take lessons from the society of yesteryears for reforming the present-day society", the court recorded.

The Court also agreed with the argument of petitioner's counsel, T. Lajapathi Roy, that Pa. Ranjith was only expressing his grievance about the prevailing caste system; hence, criminal action is not warranted against his client.

Background

During a public gathering organised by Neelapulligal Movement Association in June 2019, Pa. Ranjith commented that King Raja Raja Chola introduced the caste system. He also mentioned that the Chola era was dark, resulting in a large number of the population becoming landless poor. It also put in place the Devadasi system, the filmmaker had commented during the contentious speech. He also urged the people to read Dr. BR Ambedkar and follow Umar Farook.

In 2019, Pa. Ranjith was granted anticipatory bail by the Court in the case.

Court's Observations

At the outset, the Court delved deep into the oppression formulated by the caste system and the remedial measures that have been instrumental in toning it down. The Court also urged the citizens to fulfil their constitutional duty by staying true to 'We, the people of India' in the Preamble.

"Voice of the oppressed is not meant to be oppressed or criminalized. But to be listened, discussed, addressed and remedied", the Court observed.

"History shows that what started to indicate the classification of people on the basis of profession or avocation became geneticized, paving way for the suppression of one group of the society. Consequently, it paved the way for creating a society consisting of landless poor making them as 'class' of themselves. The ill-effects of such sort of classification of the people and the society were felt and revolted from its inception, as we see through the ages of history", the court traced the origin of the caste system in its order.

The Court quoted Dr BR Ambedkar to explain the meaning of 'fraternity' and the antithesis, i.e., caste system, in the context of the Constitution and oppressed classes. When the Constitution itself demands economic reforms and remedial measures to alleviate the perils of the caste system, it makes little sense to punish the voice of the oppressed though it reverberated in the form of criticism, the Court opined.

The Court also noted that Pa. Ranjith's comment about some sections of society revering cattle and other sections feeding on them wouldn't invite criminal prosecution.

Interpreting Section 153 IPC, the Court relied on Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Others (2021) to iterate the proposition in Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) that 'the intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153 A IPC and the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens rea in order to succeed.'

The Court also reproduced a part of the Patricia judgment that cites Manzar Sayeed Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007), which says that to prove the intention of promoting enmity and hatred between communities by written or spoken word, the subject matter of complaint must be read as a whole, not taking a few parts in isolation nor deriving inferential reasoning from the same.

Similarly, the Court acknowledged the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2007) that merely inciting the feelings of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group could not attract Section 153 A and Section 505 (2) of IPC.

In Ramesh v. Union of India (1988), the apex court has also held that alleged criminal speech should be judged 'from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view', the Court added.

Applying this line of reasoning, the Court allowed the criminal original petition to quash the proceedings against Pa. Ranjith, since the standards laid down by these precedents and the statutory provisions have not been met so as to attract offences under the Sections he was charged with.

Case Title: P.A. Ranjith v. The Inspector of Police, Thirupananthal Police Station

Case No: Crl. O.P.(MD) No.8893 of 2019 and Crl.MP(MD) No.5643 of 2019

Click Here To Read/ Download Order