Madras High Court Reserves Verdict On TVK's Aadhav Arjuna's Plea To Quash FIR Over Social Media Post Allegedly Inciting Violence

Justice AD Jagadish Chandira reserved orders after hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for Arjuna, and Senior Advocate NR Elango, for the State Police. Arjuna was also represented by Senior Advocate PV Balasubramaniam and Adv Arivazhagan.

The court had, on Wednesday, asked the State police not to file the final report against Arjuna till Friday (today).

Arjuna has been accused of inciting violence through his social media post and for allegedly calling for a revolution similar to that initiated by Gen Z in Nepal and Srilanka, in the State. Following this, an FIR was registered against Arjuna for offences under Sections 192 [wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot], 196(1)(b) [promoting enmity between different groups], 197(1)(d) ]imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integrity], 353(1)(b), and 353 (2) [statements conducing to public mischief] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita BNS 2023.

Singhvi had argued that there was no mens rea in the present case, which was evident from the fact that the post, which was made at 11:30 pm on September 28, was deleted within 34 minutes before building any viewership. He had thus argued that Arjuna did not have any intention to create incendiary. He had also argued that the tweets were protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.

When the matter was taken up today, Elango argued that though the first part of the post might be covered under Article 19 of the Constitution, the second part wanted to call for violence similar to that in Nepal and Sri Lanka, for toppling the government. He thus argued that the post would come under the purview of Article 19(2) wherein restriction could be imposed for protecting public order and incitement of violence.

With respect to mens rea, Elango argued that the same had to be determined at the time of trial. He pointed out that if the court was to exercise its power under Section 482 to quash the case on a submission that there was no mens rea, any person accused under Section 304 for culpable homicide could come to the court and say that they did not have any intention.

Elango also argued that the court had to consider who had made the comments and in which context it was made. He argued that in the present case, Arjuna was a political person and the comments were made in the aftermath of a stampede, when everyone was in shock and grieving. He further argued that every right and indulgence had a limit.

“Court has to consider who made the comment and in what context. He is a political person. Comments were made in the aftermath of the stampede, everyone was in sorrow, it was a national disaster and those responsible were not taking up responsibility at that time. Even when their cadres were in shock, agitated about the incident, the comments were made,” Elango argued.

“Every right and indulgence has a limit. If this FIR would not have been registered, there woild have been consequences. It is a question of facts. What would have happened if he was not stopped. It is a question of fact. It has to be investigated. It cannot be the subject matter of anybody's imagination,” he argued further.

With respect to the argument of no preliminary enquiry, Elango argued that, as per Section 173(3) of the BNSS, the officer in charge of the police station can proceed with the investigation when there is a prima facie case upon the approval of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He informed the court that in the present case, the complaint was forwarded to the joint commissioner in the IG rank, who opined that there was a prima facie case.

Countering Elango's arguments, Singhvo argued that though it was true that mens rea had to be proved through trial, it would not prevent the court from exercising its powers under Section 482 of CrPC.

When the court questioned if the posts were deleted by Arjuna after realising that he did something wrong, Singhvi submitted that the comments were deleted only because Arjuna did not want to create a controversy, even though he wanted to criticise the government.

“He is a political person. He was strongly objecting to the state. What is the first sentence of post about alleged police brutality. It's about the police under the current dispensation. He realised that he does not want to create a controversy even though he wants to criticize the govt. The second thought he realised is that he is not concerned with what happened in Srilanka and Nepal, but only concerned with what is happening in TN. That's why he made first edit in 15 minutes,” Singhvi argued.

Singhvi also accused the filing of FIR through an LIC agent. He argued that the complaint was filed after 18 hours, at 6:00 pm and the FIR was registered within 6:10 pm. He thus argued that the FIR was a mere reproduction of the complaint.

Singhvi further argued that the post made by Arjuna had nothing to do with hate speech and was only intended to show anger, dissent against the government running the regime, which allowed such things to happen. He argued that the post, as well as its deletion, would come within the purview of Article 19(1)(a).

Singhvi also argued that the case was not connected with the Karur stampede tragedy.

“Karur stampede has nothing to do with it. Otherwise my lords would not be hearing it. I'm not an accused in that FIR. Suppse there is a murder and I tweet about it, I'm not a part of the murder case. If lordship does not give protection to a persons liberty in a case where no physical action has taken place, it would defeat the purpose of 482 itself,” Singhvi argued.

After hearing the arguments, the court reserved the orders.

Counsel for Petitioners: Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for Gohil Agarwal Law Chamber, Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal, Yash S Vijay, Pranav Gopalakrishnan

Counsel for respondents: Senior Advocate NR Elango, assisted by Additional Public Prosecutor E Raj Tilak

Case Title: Aadhav Arjuna v. State

Case No: Crl OP 28737 of 2025