"Not Good For Persons At Helm Of Affairs To Speak Like This”: Madras HC Closes Suo Motu Case Against Ex-TN Minister Ponmudi For Hate Speech

The Madras High Court, on Tuesday, closed the suo motu case initiated against former Tamil Nadu Minister K Ponmudi for his remarks against Vaishnavism, Saivism, and women. The court noted that the complainants were at liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional magistrates against the closure of complaints. 

While closing the suo motu case, Justice N Satish Kumar orally remarked that Ponmudi, while holding the public office, should not have made such comments which would hurt the sentiments of persons.  

"If an ordinary person had uttered this, we could've avoided it. But a person in responsibility should not have uttered this. He should've asked for some advice before making such statements...It's not good for persons at the helm of affairs to speak like this. Everybody has rights under the Constitution. Sentiments should not be hurt like this," the court orally remarked. 

 The court also expressed displeasure in the manner in which the police had closed the complaints and filed their report before the Magistrate's court. The court orally remarked that instead of following their political bosses, the investigating officers should have conducted a proper inquiry.

"You should've at least given the impression that you're conducting a proper investigation. Being a law investigation agency, you should've conducted an investigation properly... IOs should not follow their political bosses. You should've conducted a proper enquiry. Is this the way a statement is filed (before Magistrate)? One sensitive issue, whether it's right or wrong, is this the way the reports are filed? Where are the details?" the court orally remarked 

On April 23, the court had initiated the suo motu case after noting that the speech made by Ponmudi prima facie constituted hate speech and that the state had not registered any FIR against the same. While initiating suo motu action, the court had said that a message should be sent so that in the future, people would not venture to make such spurious statements. The court emphasised that people holding such a position, and such a statute, should not be making such comments. The court added that people should not get the impression that merely because someone belongs to a particular political party, they could say anything.

When the case was posted for hearing thereafter, the Advocate General informed the court that the complaints made against the former Minister had been closed after conducting a preliminary enquiry. The court had, however, decided to keep the suo motu case pending and had warned the State that it would come down heavily if it was found that the aggrieved persons were not served notices before closing their complaints. Later, the court had also asked the AG to produce the full text of the speech made by the former Minister.

Producing the full text, the AG argued that the Minister had only reiterated an earlier speech made in 1975. He also submitted that, as per the recent order of the Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, the police were to conduct a preliminary inquiry before lodging the FIR, if the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment between three and seven years, as per Section 173(3) of the BNSS. He also submitted that the complainants could always approach the Magistrate against the closure of their complaints. The AG also submitted that the suo motu was registered on the premise that no complaints had been made against the minister, which was not the case. The AG also pointed out that the State had filed details regarding the communication of the closure of complaints. 

The court noted that one of the complainants had already filed a complaint against the closure of the complaint before the Magistrate's Court, Saidapet, which was then transferred to the Special Court dealing with cases against MPs and MLAs. The court was also informed that the Special Court was awaiting the decision of the High Court in the suo motu case. 

Taking note of the proceedings, the court opined that the suo motu case could be closed and the complainants could pursue their remedy before the concerned court. At the same time, the court underlined that the former Minister should not have made such comments.  

Counsel for Petitioners: Senior Counsel G Karthikeyan, Advocate GS Mani

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr PS Raman, Advocate General, assisted by Additional Public Prosecutor E Raj Thilak and Additional Public Prosecutor KMD Muhilan

Case Title: Suo Motu WP v. The Director General of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 311

Case No: Wp Crl 1 of 2025