To enjoy additional benefits
CONNECT WITH US
February 08, 2024 11:41 am | Updated 06:42 pm IST – CHENNAI
COMMents
SHARE
READ LATER
Tamil Nadu BJP president K. Annamalai. File | Photo Credit: S.R. Raghunathan
“If religion becomes a bellicose jingoism, it can prove fatal to the secular fabric of this country,” the Madras High Court observed on Thursday, while refusing to quash criminal proceedings initiated against BJP Tamil Nadu president K. Annamalai for claiming that it was a Christian missionary NGO that filed the first case against the bursting of crackers.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh dismissed the quash petition filed by the BJP leader and observed that the statements made by him in an interview to a YouTube channel, two days before Deepavali in 2022, prima facie “disclose a divisive intent on the part of the petitioner to project as if a Christian NGO is acting against Hindu culture.”
The judge said that the intent behind the statement could be gathered from the fact that though the interview spanned about 40 minutes, a shorter, six-and-a-half minute clip, in which he made the claim about the Christian NGO, was posted by the official X handle of the BJP Tamil Nadu unit.
“The content of the above message is that there is a Christian Missionary NGO, which is internationally funded, and is involved in completely destroying Hindu culture by filing cases in the Supreme Court and by preventing Hindus from bursting crackers,” the judge wrote, after delving deep into the law on hate speeches since the creation of the offence of De Scandalis Magnatum in 1275.
Though it was argued on behalf of the quash petitioner that his interview had not disturbed public tranquility so far, the judge recalled the Supreme Court to have warned, in one of its recent judgements, that hate speeches could act like a ticking bomb waiting to explode at an appropriate time. He said, the observations of the apex court were more relevant in the era of social media.
“Hence, the psychological impact of a statement made by a popular leader must not be merely confined by testing it only to immediate physical harm. It is the duty of the court to see if it has caused a silent harm in the psyche of the targeted group, which, at a later point of time, will have their desired effect in terms of violence or even resulting in genocide,” he wrote.
Stating that the genocide of Jews was the result of hate speeches delivered by Adolf Hitler, Justice Venkatesh said, “if the purpose of religion is not understood, it can take away the sense of neutrality and ability to think in terms of rationality and individuality. That is the reason why Karl Marx sarcastically said that religion is the opium of the people. This statement will prove to be true if the real purpose of religion is not understood.”
He went on to state: “A judge, who decides these kind of cases, cannot be sitting in a pulpit nor would ignore what is happening in the society during the relevant point of time. A judge, who is holding a constitutional position, has taken his oath on the Constitution of India and therefore, he is duty bound to ensure that the basic features of the Constitution and the fabric of this country are not attempted to be destroyed.”
The judge agreed with advocate V. Suresh, representing the complainant V. Piyush, that a Judicial Magistrate in Salem had passed a well-reasoned order before taking cognisance of the complaint against the quash petitioner and therefore it was an additional reason for not interfering with those proceedings. He, however, made it clear that the petitioner would be entitled to raise all grounds in his defence before the Magistrate.
In the prelude to his order, Justice Venkatesh drew the attention of the quash petitioner to the words of Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar who in 1966 penned a Constitution Bench verdict in Yagnapurushdasji versus Muldas and wrote a few significant words on the incredible heteroginity of Hinduism.
“The Hindu religion is a reflection of the composite character of the Hindus who are not one people, but many. It is based on the idea of universal receptivity. It has ever aimed at accommodating itself to circumstances, and has carried on the process of adaptation through more than three thousand years. It has first borne with and then, so to speak, swallowed, digested and assimilated something from all creeds,” the Supreme Court verdict read.
COMMents
SHARE
Bharatiya Janata Party / Tamil Nadu
BACK TO TOP
Terms & conditions | Institutional Subscriber
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.