Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Amudha, State Deputy Secretary of the AIADMK's Women Wing, who was accused of making derogatory statements against Tamil Nadu’s Chief Minister, his family, and state ministers during a political meeting. The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira deemed her conduct a breach of constitutional limits on free speech.

The allegations arose from Amudha’s speech at an event on September 22, 2024, commemorating the 116th birth anniversary of former Chief Minister Aringar Anna in Attur. The FIR, filed nearly a month later on October 18, accused her of using "filthy and vulgar language" to tarnish the reputation of the Chief Minister and his administration.

Despite being informed of the delay in lodging the complaint, the court held that the registration followed due process, including consultations with senior officials and the Public Prosecutor.

Amudha's counsel argued that the case was politically motivated, aimed at silencing opposition voices critical of government policies. The counsel emphasized her role in a political party, stating that she merely expressed dissent in public interest and had no intention to incite public unrest. The absence of complaints from the public or allegations of disrupted peace due to her statements were also highlighted.

The State, however, countered that her remarks transcended political criticism, veering into vulgarity and personal attacks.

Citing the speech transcript, the court noted that her comments lacked decency and decorum, which are implicit boundaries of free expression under the Constitution. Justice Chandira remarked that the freedom of speech could not be exploited to propagate derogatory language under the guise of political discourse.

"While freedom of speech is guaranteed under the Constitution, this court feels that such a right cannot be taken advantage by anybody to cross the limits of decency," said the bench. 

Court also highlighted that recently, it had rejected a similar petition filed by an actress seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in respect of a case lodged against her for having delivered a hate speech by passing some comments in public over women belonging to a particular community.

An affidavit of apology had been submitted by Amudha before the court, asserting regret for her actions. However, court found the apology insincere, interpreting it as a calculated attempt to justify her statements rather than express genuine remorse. The affidavit’s tone and content failed to convince the court of Amudha's repentance.

Therefore, court dismissed Amudha's petition,

Case Title: Amudha Vs. State