The Supreme Court today stayed criminal proceedings against Tamil Nadu BJP President K. Annamalai in a hate speech case against him for his remarks on Christian missionaries.
The bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta stated that K Annamalai’s remarks do not constitute the offence under section 153A of the Indian Penal Code. The bench listed the matter for the week commencing April 29.
The Madras High Court had earlier refused to quash the criminal proceedings lodged against Annamalai, leading to the appeal before the apex court. Tamil Nadu BJP chief K Annamalai, in a YouTube interview, had claimed that it was a Christian missionary NGO that had filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking ban on bursting of firecrackers during Diwali.
The High Court bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh dismissed the quashing petition filed by Annamalai and directed a judicial magistrate in Salem to proceed with the matter without being influenced by the High Court’s comments.
Justice Venkatesh remarked that the case against Annamalai should serve as a reminder to those in positions of power and influence to exercise caution for their words and deeds as it has a wider reach and impact on the citizens of this country.
The Madras High Court asserted that the Tamil Nadu BJP chief had knowingly and conveniently used a petition filed before the Supreme Court on environmental issues as a vehicle to stoke communal tension. The bench further reasoned that it was time to look at what constituted hate speech differently, given the advent and reach of social media.
In the complaint, filed by a social activist before the Salem magistrate court in 2022, K Annamalai had given an interview to a YouTube channel on October 22, 2022, where he had deliberately fanned communal hatred against Christians by lying that it was a missionary NGO that had filed the first case before the Supreme Court for a ban on Diwali crackers.
Subsequently, the Salem court had taken cognisance and issued summons to Annamalai following which he approached the High Court with the quashing petition.