Madras HC Slams Ponmudi’s Remarks, Keeps Case Alive
Thanks for studying this submit, remember to subscribe!
Madras Excessive Court docket declines to shut suo motu case in opposition to ex-Minister Okay Ponmudi for lewd joke on Shaivite-Vaishnavite tilaks. Court docket warns politicians can’t misuse Article 19 beneath the guise of free speech.
The Madras Excessive Court docket has determined to maintain pending the suo motu (by itself) case in opposition to former Tamil Nadu Forest Minister Okay Ponmudi, who reportedly advised a vulgar joke involving non secular symbols — the tilaks worn by followers of Hindu sects, Shaivites and Vaishnavites.
This resolution comes despite the fact that the Tamil Nadu police have already closed over 120 complaints associated to this matter.
Justice P Velmurugan, who’s listening to the case, strongly criticised the irresponsible behaviour of politicians when talking in public.
He mentioned that many leaders wrongly consider they’ve full freedom beneath Article 19 of the Structure (which provides the appropriate to free speech).
Justice Velmurugan mentioned:
“These days, all politicians, all individuals making public speeches…they suppose Article 19 provides them absolute rights…that solely sky is the restrict. Court docket can’t merely be a silent spectator…There are affordable restrictions…There are a number of sects, non secular communities…They need to give it some thought, when they’re in public life…They need to perceive that they’re residing in a democratic nation, it’s for each citizen, not simply any specific citizen…146 crore persons are residing on this nation. Everybody taking a mic in public should perceive…A powerful message ought to go. So many issues are being mentioned, as in the event that they (politicians) are the kings of this nation. No matter they are saying, (they suppose) they’ll do no flawed. Court docket can’t watch these items silently.”
The decide made it clear that being a public determine doesn’t give somebody the appropriate to harm non secular sentiments or insult communities.
Representing the DMK-led Tamil Nadu authorities, Advocate Normal PS Raman knowledgeable the Court docket that the police had already investigated and closed over 120 complaints in opposition to Ponmudi.
He defined that Ponmudi had not made the remark himself however had solely repeated one thing that was mentioned way back.
The Advocate Normal mentioned the individuals who filed the complaints can nonetheless method increased police officers if they need additional motion.
In response, the Court docket mentioned:
“Allow them to invoke…In the meantime, we’ll hold it (suo motu case) pending, (and see) what’s going to occur (if superior officers are approached). Court docket desires to vigilantly watch.”
Justice Velmurugan additionally directed the police to inform all complainants concerning the standing of their complaints. He warned that if even one complainant claims they weren’t knowledgeable, the Court docket would take strict motion:
“If any complainant later alleges that he was not knowledgeable concerning the standing of his grievance, the Court docket will come down on the State closely.”
The decide expressed concern about how the police had closed the complaints too early, probably with out correct investigation.
He identified that in a preliminary inquiry, the police are solely alleged to test whether or not an incident befell or not. They don’t seem to be supposed to provide a last judgment throughout this stage. Justice Velmurugan mentioned:
“There’s a distinction between preliminary inquiry (previous to registering FIR), which offers with whether or not the incident befell, and the investigation that happen throughout investigation of FIR…They (police) can’t write the judgment within the preliminary inquiry itself. He (investigating officer) can’t say it’s not hate speech (on the stage of preliminary inquiry)…Can he say solely the unique, not subsequent speaker may be punished?”
The Court docket has now adjourned the case to August 1 and can proceed to watch the developments intently. Justice Velmurugan concluded:
“We’ll watch it…I wish to know what is going on on this nation…We will’t shut it.”
The controversial remarks have been reportedly made by Ponmudi throughout a public assembly on April 8, organised by the Thanthai Periyar Dravida Kazhagam (TPDK).
In the course of the occasion, Ponmudi allegedly repeated a joke a couple of prostitute asking a person if he was a Shaivite or Vaishnavite after which deciding her cost based mostly on the tilak he wore (horizontal for Shaivites and vertical for Vaishnavites).
The joke concerned sexual references and mocked non secular id based mostly on sexual positions.
This speech triggered widespread anger and backlash throughout the state. In response, the DMK eliminated Ponmudi from his place as Deputy Normal Secretary of the get together.
Earlier, Justice Anand Venkatesh had directed the registration of a suo motu felony writ petition in opposition to Ponmudi after he condemned the remarks.
He expressed dissatisfaction over the police’s gradual response to the complaints.
Justice Venkatesh had mentioned:
“The continued inaction and hesitation of Tamil Nadu Police (in appearing on complaints in opposition to Ponmudi’s speech) is most distressing and unlucky.”
Click Here to Read Our Reports on K Ponmudi