The Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against BJP leader Amit Malviya for his tweets criticising Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister and Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Udhayanidhi Stalin over his remarks on Sanatana Dharma.
Justice S. Srimathy observed: “This Court with pain records the prevailing situation that the person who initiates the hate speech are let scot-free, but the persons who reacted for the hate speech are facing the wrath of the law. The Courts are also questioning the persons who reacted but are not putting the law in motion against the person who initiated the hate speech.”
The court was hearing a petition filed by Amit Malviya seeking to quash the FIR registered against him by Trichy police on September 6, 2023.
The FIR was based on a complaint lodged by K.A.V. Thinakaran, District Organiser of the Advocate Wing of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Trichy South (second respondent). Following the complaint, a case was registered against Malviya under Sections 153, 153A and 505(1)(b) of the IPC, 1860.
The verdict was delivered on January 20 through a detailed 28-page order, after the single-judge bench had reserved its orders on November 27, 2025, following the hearing of the case.
The allegation against the petitioner was that, with malicious intent, he had posted a video on his ‘X’ (Twitter) handle with the aim of “provoking violence between two factions” through the dissemination of false information.
The second respondent alleged that the petitioner distorted the Minister’s speech and posted it on his Twitter X account on 02.09.2023.
Following the outrage, the Minister issued a clarificatory tweet stating: “I never called for the genocide of the people who are following Sanatana Dharma… uprooting Sanatana Dharma is upholding humanity and human equity. I stand firmly by every word I have spoken… I believe that Sanatana Dharma is responsible for many social evils like the spread of diseases like COVID-19, dengue and malaria by mosquitoes.”
The judge noted that, based on the post, the petitioner had questioned the Minister as follows:
(a) Whether the Minister was of the opinion that Sanatana Dharma must be eradicated and not merely opposed — in short, whether he was calling for the genocide of 80 per cent of the population of Bharat who follow Sanatana Dharma.
(b) Whether this position was agreed upon at the Mumbai meet, given that the DMK is a prominent member of the Opposition alliance and a long-standing ally of the Congress.
The court observed that the entire case revolved around the Tamil word “Ozhippu”, which was crucial.
The word “Ozhippu” can be translated as “abolish”, as admitted even by the prosecution. The court reasoned that if Sanatana Dharma should not exist, then the people following Sanatana Dharma should also not exist. This would imply suppression and destruction.
If a group of people following Sanatana Dharma should not exist, the appropriate word would be “genocide”;
if Sanatana Dharma is treated as a religion, it would amount to “religicide”, along with culturicide. Therefore, the Tamil phrase “Sanatana Ozhippu” would clearly mean genocide or culturicide.
In such circumstances, the petitioner’s post questioning the Minister’s speech would not amount to hate speech.
The court also referred to an earlier High Court order dated March 6, 2024, which had held that the Minister’s speech amounted to hate speech.
The judge stated that when hate speech is uttered by a Minister, a person opposing such hate speech cannot be considered to have committed a crime.
The petitioner had merely questioned whether the Minister meant genocide of 80 per cent of the population. The petitioner had not called for any agitation against the Minister or his party, but had placed facts and sought answers.
The post was in the form of questions seeking a reply and did not attract the ingredients of the penal provisions invoked.
Rejecting the submissions of the Additional Advocate General, the bench observed that if stating that the Minister was instigating 80 per cent of the population against 20 per cent amounted to instigation, then the reverse argument would equally apply, making such a submission absurd.
The judge further noted that the petitioner had not referred to any two communities and that there was absolutely no mens rea. The petitioner had merely reacted to and questioned the hate speech of the Minister. Continuing the proceedings would cause irreparable harm and injury to the petitioner.
The court also recorded that there were documented incidents of attacks on Hinduism and caste Hindus, including cutting of tufts and janeu, adorning pigs with janeu, garlanding Bhagwan Ram with slippers, placing slippers on Bhagwan Ganesha murtis, and breaking Ganesha murtis
. Several complaints were filed, but most were not acted upon. The court observed that there had been a sustained attack on Hinduism by Dravida Kazhagam and later by DMK for nearly a century, to which the Minister belongs. In this background, the petitioner had only questioned the hidden meaning of the Minister’s speech.
Holding that the Minister’s speech was clearly against 80 per cent of Hindus and fell within the mischief of hate speech, the court ruled that the petitioner, being a Sanathani, was a victim of such hate speech and had only defended Sanatana Dharma. The reply post did not attract Sections 153, 153A or 505(1)(b) IPC; rather, the Minister’s speech would attract those provisions.
The court once again recorded with concern that those who initiate hate speech are often left untouched, while those who react face legal action.
No case had been registered against the Minister in the State, though cases had been filed elsewhere.
The court also took note of the counter filed by the police stating, “The Governor and BJP can speak about the Sanatana, then why cannot the Minister speak about the Sanatana?” The court held that the counter revealed political colouring and emphasised that investigating officers must remain apolitical.
Concluding that the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the High Court quashed the impugned FIR against the petitioner.
The Madurai Bench of the Honourable Madras High Court has quashed the vindictive and politically motivated FIR filed by the corrupt, anti-Hindu DMK government against Thiru @amitmalviya avl, National In-Charge of the @BJP4India’s IT Department.
The Court categorically observed…
— K.Annamalai (@annamalai_k) January 21, 2026
Reacting on the judgement, TN BJP leader K.Annamalai, said, “Justice has prevailed. Truth cannot be prosecuted, nor can DMK’s political vendetta extinguish civilisational faith. Will the DMK & others in the I.N.D.I. Alliance move a impeachment notice against Justice Srimathy avl too?
