Last Updated:January 21, 2026, 10:00 IST

The court expressed concern that legal action was initiated against those reacting to the speech, while no case had been registered against the person who made the remarks.

Madras HC called Udhayanidhi’s remark on Sanatan Dharma ‘hate speech’ | File Image

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday quashed a criminal case filed against BJP IT cell head Amit Malviya for his social media post criticising Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks on Sanatan Dharma, while sharply observing that the minister’s speech itself amounted to hate speech.

Allowing Malviya’s petition, Justice S Srimathy held that his post, in which he described Udhayanidhi’s 2023 remarks as a call for genocide, did not constitute an offence and was a response to what the court described as an inflammatory speech targeting Hindus who follow Sanatan Dharma.

“The minister’s remarks amount to hate speech,” the judge said, adding that Malviya, as a follower of Sanatan Dharma, could be considered a victim of such speech and had merely defended his faith.

The court was hearing a challenge to an FIR registered by the Tiruchy police following a complaint by a DMK-affiliated advocate.

Malviya had been booked under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including those related to promoting enmity and public mischief, over his post reacting to Udhayanidhi’s address at the ‘Sanatan Abolition Conference’ held on September 2, 2023.

In its order, the court expressed concern that legal action was initiated against those reacting to the speech, while no case had been registered against the person who made the original remarks.

“The courts are questioning those who reacted, but the law is not being set in motion against the person who initiated the hate speech,” Justice Srimathy observed.

Referring to the historical context cited by Malviya’s counsel, the judge noted a sustained ideological opposition to Hinduism by the Dravida Kazhagam and later the DMK over several decades.

In that backdrop, the court said Malviya’s post questioned the underlying meaning of the minister’s speech rather than inciting hatred.

The judge analysed the Tamil word ‘Ozhippu’, repeatedly used in the minister’s address, which translates to ‘abolish’.

“If Sanatana Dharma is to be abolished, it implies that those who follow it should not exist,” the court said, holding that the phrase ‘Sanatana Ozhippu’ could be understood as advocating genocide or cultural annihilation.

Citing a March 2024 Madras High Court order in a separate case, the judge pointed out that Udhayanidhi’s remarks had earlier also been characterised as hate speech.

“When hate speech is uttered by a minister, opposing it cannot be treated as a criminal act,” the court said, noting that Malviya had neither called for agitation nor incited violence.

The court also pulled up the investigating officer for including politically coloured statements in the counter affidavit, particularly a remark questioning why the minister could not speak on Sanatan Dharma if the Governor and BJP leaders did so.

“Officials must remain apolitical. Taking sides is reprehensible,” the judge said.

Malviya had maintained that his post merely reproduced the minister’s publicly available speech and reflected his interpretation of its intent.

Accepting this argument, the court ruled that the FIR was unsustainable and ordered it to be quashed.

Read More