Chennai: The Madras High Court, on July 2, dismissed a plea filed by former DMK Minister K. Ponmudi challenging an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, taking cognisance of a hate speech complaint filed against him by BJP Councillor Uma Anandan. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea, effectively refusing to interfere with the private complaint filed by Anandan. The court had reserved orders on the plea on June 25.
One of the netizens said: “Madras High Court delivers justice! Dismisses former DMK Minister Ponmudi’s plea, allowing the hate speech case by BJP’s Uma Anandan to proceed. No one gets a free pass to defame Sanatan Hindu culture, Vaishnavism, Saivism and women! Hindu beliefs deserve respect, not ridicule. Proud of the Court for upholding Dharma!”
Madras High Court delivers justice! Dismisses former DMK Minister Ponmudi’s plea, allowing hate speech case by BJP’s Uma Anandan to proceed.
No one gets a free pass to defame Sanatan Hindu culture, Vaishnavism, Saivism & women!
Hindu beliefs deserve respect, not ridicule.… https://t.co/9uGtZsRF0m
— Lt Col N Thiagarajan Veteran (@NTR_NationFirst) July 2, 2026
In April 2025, Ponmudi allegedly made anti-sanatana remarks on Vaishnavism, Saivism and women during an event in Chennai. The Madras High Court had directed the State to register an FIR and later initiated suo motu proceedings after no FIR was registered, observing that the speech prima facie amounted to hate speech. Ponmudi had referred to an anecdote in which the pattai—the horizontal sacred mark worn by Saivites—and the tiruman—the vertical forehead mark worn by Vaishnavites—were compared with “descriptions of sexual postures by a sex worker”.
The suo motu proceedings were subsequently closed after the State informed the Court that the complaints had been investigated and closed for want of material, while granting liberty to the complainants to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. BJP’s lone Greater Chennai Corporation Councillor, Uma Anandan, filed a private complaint under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Finding a prima facie case, the Metropolitan Magistrate took cognisance of the complaint and issued summons to Ponmudi. Challenging the cognisance order and the summons, Ponmudi moved the Madras High Court. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Senior Counsel N.R. Elango, appearing for Ponmudi, argued that prior sanction from the Government was mandatory before initiating prosecution and that the Magistrate had erred in not considering this requirement.
The advocate for Uma Anandan contended that Ponmudi’s speech was intended to propagate an atheist ideology and create hatred against the Hindu religion in the minds of people belonging to other faiths. The counsel further submitted that Ponmudi was a sitting Minister at the time and that his words would carry considerable influence among the public.
On March 26 this year, the court passed an interim order staying further proceedings in the complaint pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s court. On February 27, 2026, III Metropolitan Magistrate N. Vasudevan admitted the private complaint moved by Uma Anandan and issued summons to Ponmudi.
The Magistrate observed that a prima facie case had been made out against the accused for offences under Sections 196(1)(a) (attempting to promote disharmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups/castes using spoken or written words, signs or electronic communication), 299 (malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and 302 (deliberate wounding of religious feelings) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
It is to be noted that, in March 2024, the Supreme Court of India stayed the conviction and suspended the three-year prison sentence of former Tamil Nadu Higher Education Minister and DMK leader K. Ponmudi in a disproportionate assets case.
