‘100 Years of Attack on Hinduism by Dravida Parties’: Madras HC Quashes FIR Against Amit Malviya in Sanatana Dharma Remark Row

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, on January 20, 2026 quashed an FIR registered against BJP IT cell head Amit Malviya over his social media posts responding to Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks on Sanatana Dharma, holding that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.

The bench of Justice S. Srimathy allowed Malviya’s plea seeking quashing of the 2023 case registered by the CCB Police, Tiruchirappalli, for offences under Sections 153, 153A and 505(1)(b) IPC.

While dealing with the matter, court made a pointed and critical observation on the manner in which hate speech cases are being handled by the State. 

“This Court with pain records the prevailing situation that the person who initiates the hate speech are let scot-free, but the persons who reacted for the hate speech are facing the wrath of the law. The Courts are also questioning the persons who reacted but are not putting the law on motion against the person initiated the hate speech," Justice Srimathy wrote. 

Court pointed out that in the present matter, no case had been filed against the minister for his hate speech in the State, whereas multiple cases had been filed in other States.

Apart from these, court also made explicit observations referring to DMK and its ideological legacy. "...it is evident that there is clear attack on Hinduism by the Dravida Kazhagam and subsequently along with by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, for the past 100 years, to which the Minister belongs," Justice Srimathy held. 

The FIR against Malviya stemmed from a speech delivered by Stalin on September 2, 2023, at a conference organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association. During the speech, the minister stated that certain things could not merely be opposed but had to be eradicated, drawing an analogy between Sanatana Dharma and diseases such as dengue, malaria and coronavirus.

Following the speech, Malviya shared a video clip of the address on his X account and questioned whether the remarks amounted to a call for genocide of the population that follows Sanatana Dharma. He also referred to the political context of the DMK being part of the opposition alliance.

Based on a complaint filed by K.A.V. Thinakaran, a district organiser of the DMK Advocate Wing, the police registered an FIR alleging that Malviya had maliciously distorted the minister’s speech, spread false information, and attempted to provoke enmity between groups, thereby endangering public tranquility.

Opposing the quash plea, the State argued that Malviya’s interpretation of the speech as a call for genocide was a “twisted” version intended to inflame communal sentiments. The prosecution also relied on Supreme Court directions requiring States to act suo motu against hate speech and claimed that Malviya’s posts had triggered unrest, including extreme reactions from certain individuals.

Malviya, however, contended that he had merely reproduced the minister’s own words and expressed his understanding of their implications. He argued that his post was in the nature of a question and did not call for violence, agitation, or hostility against any group.

Court examined the minister’s speech, particularly the Tamil word “Ozhippu,” used in the context of Sanatana Dharma. The judge noted that the term translates to “abolish” or “eradicate” and carries connotations of elimination.

Court observed that when such terminology is applied to a belief system followed by a large section of the population, the interpretation raised by the petitioner could not be brushed aside as malicious.

"The petitioner who is a sanathani is a victim of such hate speech and has only defended the Sanathana Dharma from the hate speech," court said. 

Referring to settled Supreme Court precedents, court reiterated that for offences under Sections 153A and 505 IPC, mens rea and the promotion of enmity between at least two identifiable groups are essential ingredients. The judge held that Malviya’s post did not incite one community against another, nor did it demonstrate an intention to cause public disorder.

Court also relied on earlier judicial findings, including a March 2024 order in quo warranto petitions where the minister’s speech was held to amount to hate speech against a specific community. In that context, court reasoned that reacting to or questioning an allegedly hateful statement could not, by itself, attract criminal liability.

Concluding that the FIR did not disclose the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences and that allowing the investigation to proceed would result in irreparable harm to the petitioner, court held that the case was fit for exercise of inherent powers.

Accordingly, court quashed the FIR of 2023 insofar as Malviya was concerned and allowed the criminal original petition, closing the connected miscellaneous petition.

Case Title: Amit Malviya vs. State and Another

Order Date: January 20, 2026

Bench: Justice S. Srimathy