The Chennai George Town Metropolitan Magistrate Court has issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against former DMK Minister K. Ponmudi and directed the police to produce him before the court by September 2 in connection with a hate speech case in which he had allegedly compared the Vaishnavite and Saivite spiritual marks with a commercial sex worker.
It is to be remembered that in April 2025, Ponmudi made the controversial speech in Chennai targeting Hindus. During the speech, he allegedly narrated an anecdote comparing the sacred ‘Pattai’ (horizontal forehead mark worn by Saivites) and ‘Thiruman’ (vertical forehead mark worn by Vaishnavites) with sexual positions described by a commercial sex worker.
The remarks triggered widespread outrage, with several Hindu organisations and BJP leaders accusing him of insulting Hindu beliefs and hurting the religious sentiments of both Saivite and Vaishnavite communities.
The controversy also led to his removal from the post of DMK Deputy General Secretary, following criticism from within the party and across the political spectrum.
Following the speech, a private complaint was filed by Chennai Corporation BJP councillor Uma Anandan seeking action against him for promoting religious enmity and offending religious beliefs.
The court took cognisance of the complaint and initiated proceedings. The Madras High Court had also taken up the issue suo motu.
On September 16, 2025, it closed the suo motu writ petition on the ground that the police had already received more than 100 complaints. The police had closed all the complaints after stating that they had not found a prima facie case to register an FIR.
However, Justice N. Sathish Kumar granted liberty to the complainants to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate Court challenging the closure reports filed by the police. The High Court observed that Ponmudi ought not to have made such a speech and that it did not behove a person holding a high public office.
Subsequently, BJP councillor Uma Anandan approached the George Town Metropolitan Magistrate Court with a private complaint. Finding a prima facie case, the Magistrate took cognisance of offences under Sections 196(1)(a), 299 and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and issued summons to Ponmudi.
Challenging the proceedings, Ponmudi moved the Madras High Court seeking to quash the complaint, contending that he had merely repeated an anecdote and that no offence was made out.
On July 2, 2026, the Madras High Court dismissed Ponmudi’s petition, holding that his speech had deliberately and maliciously insulted the Hindu religion, wounded the religious feelings of Hindus and promoted hatred and ill will.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan observed that, being a Minister and MLA, Ponmudi was fully aware that his speech would be widely circulated and that such remarks were unbecoming of a public representative. The High Court upheld the Magistrate’s order taking cognisance of the complaint and directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months.
The Magistrate Court, which has been hearing the case, repeatedly ordered Ponmudi to appear before it. However, he failed to comply with the summons. Instead, he sought to quash the proceedings before the High Court, which dismissed his petition on July 2 and allowed the trial to continue.
Thanks @CMOTamilnadu for setting a precedent .
Chennai Georgetown court issues arrest warrant for Ponmudi in the obscene speech against women case .
Spectacular! pic.twitter.com/GubCT9bu5x
— Shalin Maria Lawrence (@ShalinSpeaks) August 6, 2026
In this background, the court on August 6 issued a non-bailable warrant after rejecting the plea made by his counsel seeking more time for his appearance.
Ponmudi has also been embroiled in a disproportionate assets (DA) case. In December 2023, the Madras High Court set aside a trial court’s acquittal and convicted Ponmudi and his wife, P. Visalatchi, holding that they had amassed assets disproportionate to their known sources of income during his tenure as Minister for Mines and Minerals between 2006 and 2011. Justice G. Jayachandran found that the couple had accumulated assets exceeding their known income by 64.9 per cent, convicted them under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and later sentenced both to three years’ simple imprisonment along with a ₹50 lakh fine each. The High Court had observed that the trial court had erred in acquitting the couple despite the evidence placed on record
