Madras High Court quashes hate-speech case over a political leader's press-meet remark
A Salem magistrate took cognisance of a private complaint under hate-speech sections against a former Tamil Nadu BJP president over a remark at a press meet attributed to a freedom fighter. The Madras High Court quashed the case on 24 September 2026. It held there was no material that the speech was intended or likely to incite violence or promote disharmony.
This page records what the cited court records and reports say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The proceedings in C.C. No. 306 of 2026 before the Salem magistrate stand quashed.
What happened
The High Court recorded that a Salem resident filed a private complaint alleging the petitioner, at a press meet, attributed to freedom fighter Muthuramalinga Thevar a 1956 statement that the complainant said was never made and was provocative.
The Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Salem took cognisance under Sections 153A and 505(1)(c) of the IPC and issued summons in C.C. No. 306 of 2026; the High Court had earlier stayed the trial.
The High Court held the speech did not refer to two or more groups, was made as a political response to remarks by a member of another party, and that there was no material showing actual or imminent disharmony, enmity, hatred or violence.
The High Court held the foundational ingredients of the offences were not disclosed and quashed the proceedings on 24 September 2026.
What the record says
“The criminal process cannot be permitted to be used as a weapon for settling political scores or to stifle legitimate political dissent.”
Crl.O.P. No. 9798 of 2026, Madras High Court, pronounced 24.09.2026, para 14 — read the full text
Punished for a freedom
A political leader faced prosecution under hate-speech sections for a remark at a press meet, with no allegation that anyone was harmed or that violence followed.
What we could not confirm
The complaint was a private complaint, not a police FIR; the magistrate's cognisance and summons are the state action. The remark itself is described only as reported in the order.