Lawyer Moves Madras HC Seeking Action Against Minister K Ponmudi For Alleged Derogatory Comments On Saivism, Vaishnavism & Women

Advocate B Jaganath has filed the plea to declare that the recent speech made by Ponmudi as ultra vires and patently violative of Article 188, Article 99 of the Constitution and the oath of office of the Minister.

In his plea, Jagannath said that while attending a meeting organised by Thanthai Periyar Dravida Kazhagam on April 2025, Ponmudi had made several derogatory statements against women in public forum, calling them “osi” [freeloader] for going free in Government Buses as per the government scheme. During the speech, Ponmudi also talked about a supposed chat between a prostitute and a customer, and in the process made derogatory remarks in connection with the manner of applying Vibhuthi in Saivism and Vaishnavism. Jagannath also pointed out that the statements were condoned by many politicians across the state, and Ponmudi was even temporarily removed as the Deputy General Secretary of the DMK Party.

Calling it the most grotesque, shameful, and derogatory statement made by a sitting Caninet Minister, Jagannath said that the act deserved strongest and harshest punishment. He also informed the court that he had filed a police complaint in this regard, and also written to the Chief Minister to immediately remove Ponmudi from all constitutional posts.

Jagannath also attacked the meeting, stating that it was organised to specifically target Hinduism and to abuse, humiliate, and spread hatred towards Sanatana Dharma and Hindus. He also submitted that it was unclear whether the Tamil Nadu police granted any permission to organise the meeting, and it had to be seen whether there was a political interference in granting permission for such conferences.

Jagannath also submitted that Ponmudi, being a constitutional authority, had a duty to conduct themselves in public and are bound by constitutional values and principles. He added that the constitution does not provide for hate speech in the guise of secularism and freedom of speech.

Jagannath also argued that as per Article 99 and Article 189 of the Constitution, the elected members had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, serve the nation, and work for the welfare of the people.

Thus, arguing that his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution has been affected, Jagannath said that he had a locus to file the petition and sought directions accordingly.