The Madras High Court has launched a scathing attack on the Tamil Nadu police, questioning where they derived the authority to close 121 complaints filed against former DMK minister K. Ponmudi for his alleged derogatory and obscene comments against women. The court refused to close the suo motu case against Ponmudi, making it clear that being a public figure does not grant one the right to hurt religious sentiments or insult communities.
While hearing a suo motu case initiated against the former minister for his remarks against Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and women, the Madras High Court on July 8 orally observed that nowadays, politicians feel they have limitless freedom under Article 19 of the Constitution. The bench remarked that they must realise the country does not belong to politicians alone, but to every citizen.
Justice P. Velmurugan criticised the minister’s conduct, stating:
“Nowadays, all politicians and individuals making public speeches believe Article 19 grants them absolute rights—as if the sky is the limit. The Court cannot simply be a silent spectator. There are reasonable restrictions. There are several sects and religious communities, and those in public life should keep that in mind. They must understand that they live in a democratic country meant for every citizen—not just one particular group. There are 146 crore people in this country. Everyone who takes a microphone in public must be conscious of that. A strong message must go out. Far too many things are being said, as if these politicians are the kings of this country, believing they can do no wrong. The Court cannot remain silent.”
The Court further observed:
“We cannot be mere spectators. We live in a democracy with diverse communities. When they step into the public sphere, they must realise this country is for everyone—not for any one class of citizen, and certainly not for politicians alone. Everyone must recognise they are living among the people.”
When informed that the complaints against Ponmudi had been closed, the Judge warned that if any aggrieved person states they were not served notice before closure, the Court would come down heavily on the authorities.
Advocate General PS Raman submitted that “all complaints were closed after following due process, by conducting a preliminary inquiry under the BNSS. The speech did not amount to hate speech, and hence the complaints were closed. However, under the BNSS, complainants still have recourse to appeal to the Inspector General or the DGP if unsatisfied with the findings of the investigation officer.”
Justice Velmurugan responded: “Can the police say only the original speaker can be punished and not someone who repeats the same speech? Politicians cannot behave like kings. The Court will not tolerate such conduct. They must show respect for the public, who are the real victims. Let the complainants exhaust all available remedies. Let them invoke the appeal mechanism. Meanwhile, we will keep the suo motu case pending to observe the outcome when superior officers are approached. The Court wishes to vigilantly monitor this.”
The Court reiterated that people in public life must understand that this country belongs to all citizens and not to any particular class. The judge directed the police to ensure that all complainants are served with a closure notice.
“If any complainant later alleges that they were not informed about the status of their complaint, the Court will take serious action against the State. We are closely watching. I want to know what is happening in this country. We cannot close this. The police cannot deliver a judgement during a preliminary inquiry.”
The Court has adjourned the case to 1 August.
On July 3, 2025, the High Court had already issued a stern warning to the police: if Tamil Nadu Police continue to avoid properly investigating the numerous complaints filed against former Higher Education Minister K. Ponmudi over his controversial remarks about women and the Shaiva–Vaishnava traditions, the Court would be compelled to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The judge expressed concern over police inaction, noting that complaints lodged at three police stations had been closed on the grounds that Ponmudi’s remarks did not constitute hate speech.
The Judge said: “There are so many other things to speak about. A public representative should be cautious and mindful of the limits placed on free expression. Even when referring to events from 50 years ago, one can choose to highlight the positives.”
The Court had adjourned that matter to July 8, 2025 for further hearing.
In April, Justice Anand Venkatesh had ordered the registration of a suo motu criminal writ petition against Ponmudi after taking strong exception to his remarks. The judge took serious note of a video clip submitted in court by a lawyer, which was played during a hearing in a 2023 suo motu revision petition that challenged Ponmudi’s acquittal in a disproportionate assets case. The video featured the minister making crude and derogatory references to Hindu religious identities.
Tamil Nadu: Madras HC orders FIR against Minister Ponmudi for remarks against women, saying law is for everybody, ruling party can’t talk anything.
By: TS Venkatesan#TamilNadu #DMK https://t.co/gWBceV36pD
— Organiser Weekly (@eOrganiser) April 21, 2025
In the video, which went viral on the social media platform X, Ponmudi could be heard making a vulgar analogy involving a prostitute to mock religious practices of Hindu sects. He recounted a supposed interaction between a man and a prostitute, in which the woman asks whether the man is a Shaivite or a Vaishnavite. This speech was delivered on April 8 at an event organised by the Thanthai Periyar Dravida Kazhagam (TPDK).
Comments