Categories
Hate Speech Rule of Law

Chennai court deems Rajnikanth speech against Periyar defamatory, at best

The Chennai district court said the speech did not amount to promoting enmity or intentional insult to disturb peace

rajnikanth

A Chennai court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by Dravidar Viduthalai Kazhagam, a fringe outfit, seeking criminal case against film actor turned politician, Rajnikanth for his remarks on rationalist leader Ramasamy Periyar. During the golden jubilee celebrations of Thuglak magazine on January 14, Rajnikanth gave a speech about Periyar’s denigration of Hindu gods in an anti-superstition rally held in Salem in 1971 by Thanthai Periyar.

The court deemed the case to be “at best defamatory” rather than police case as was being sought by the petitioner. The petitioner had sought charges under sections 153A [Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony], 504 [Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace] and 505 [Statements conducing to public mischief] of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to be invoked against Rajnikanth. As per the petitioner, Rajnikanth made “false and fraudulent statements insulting Dravidhiyan ideologists with   intention   to   provoke   breach   of   public   peace, by promoting enmity and hatred among the public of Tamil Nadu, in   the   name   of   religion,   only   to   score   political   mileage and   gather   support   from   particular   community”.

The Court, however, after hearing the speech delivered by Rajnikanth deemed that “he   has   stated   what   he   thought   was   a   fact, about   a rally held in Salem in 1971, by Thanthai Periyar, and which according to him was also published in the Thuglak weekly magazine   of   that   period….  the speech of actor Mr.   Rajinikanth, is   at   best   defamatory.   The   offence   u/s. 499   r/w   500   IPC   alone   appears   to   be   made   out.   The   said offence   is   non-cognizable, and   maintainable   as   private complaint.   In   the   circumstance, on   the   discussion   supra, this   court   finds   that   no   grounds   are   made   out   for concluding   offences   u/s.   153A, 504 and   505 IPC   are attracted,   and   the   petitioner   can   file   private   complaint for defamation, damages, and compensation, if so advised.”

The petitioner, is reportedly set to file an appeal against this order.

The order can be read here:

Related:

MP’s un-Holi mess: Scindia walks out
UP govt caused “unwarranted interference in privacy”, says HC
It is a war against Ambedkar’s Constitution, not just Muslims alone: Dalits
Thousands stage a march in Chennai against CAA-NPR-NRC
Motion against India’s divisive Citizenship Amendment Act moved in New Westminster

Exit mobile version