Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court recently held that a person who provokes another into making a statement against them cannot exploit the provocation to prosecute the other person for their response.

The high court quashed a criminal case against one Kannan, also known as Kanal Kannan, for his statements criticizing the placement of a Periyar statue outside a Hindu temple. The statue, located in front of the Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple at Srirangam in Tiruchi district, Tamil Nadu, contained provocative words against believers, calling them "fools" and "barbarians".

Kannan, a stunt choreographer and office-bearer of the Hindu Munnani had uploaded a speech on his YouTube channel criticizing the statue's placement and its disparaging comments about theists.

Against Kannan's speech, one Kumaran, District Secretary of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam filed a complaint with the police, accusing Kannan of intending to provoke unrest, instill fear among certain sections of the public, and incite others to disturb public peace. Kumaran claimed Kannan's YouTube video had fueled enmity and hatred between communities and sought legal action against him.

Following the complaint, Kannan was charged under Sections 153, 505(1)(b), and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In his petition to the high court to quash the case, Kannan argued that the authorities should have taken action against those responsible for erecting the statue instead of filing a case against him.

The bench of Justice G Jayachandran observed that the statue's inscription was the root cause of Kannan's speech.

Court noted that despite Kannan’s speech being publicly available on YouTube, there had been no disruption of public peace, no riots, and no incitement of hatred between communities. It emphasized that apart from Kumaran’s complaint, Kannan's speech had not provoked any reaction.

"After provoking a person religious sentiments and hurting his belief, by calling him as fool, barbarian and rascal, the complainant cannot take umbrage under the Law and try to gag the petitioner from reacting", court said. 

It stated that Kumaran should have recognized that the plaque’s language would hurt the sentiments of believers, especially given its location in front of a Hindu temple.

Court acknowledged that Kannan, as an office-bearer of Hindu Munnani, had simply voiced his grievance against the offensive wording.

Court further emphasized that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right, and Kannan's speech did not promote hatred or ill-will among classes.

Moreover, court noted that Kumaran lacked the locus standi to file the complaint, as the speech was not made against his community.

Accordingly, court allowed Kannan's plea and closed the criminal proceedings against him.

Case Title: V.Kannan @ Kanal Kannan vs. State