Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court on Tuesday quashed the FIR registered against Delhi-based journalist Abhijit Majumder for his statements against the late social activist and Tamil ideologue Periyar in an article.

On January 30, the court was informed that the controversial passage contained in the opinion piece authored by Majumder had been redacted and the article had been republished. 

Taking the submission on record, the bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh had posted the matter for further hearing on February 13, 2024.

A petition was filed by Majumder before the high court, seeking direction to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the Tamil Nadu Police.

The FIR was lodged over the article Majumder wrote in his blog, criticizing TN minister Udhayanidhi Stalin's alleged call to eradicate Sanatana. In the piece, Majumder made comments disparaging Periyar, labeling him as "an intellectual thug" and making controversial claims about his personal life.

In its order dated January 8, the high court said that in the article published on September 3, 2023, there was a portion that was highly condemnable as a very derogatory statement had been made against Thanthai Periyar without any basis.

During the hearing, the court had also expressed concern over the lack of decency in presenting news and opinions in current times. Court had said that though journalists possess the freedom to critique an individual's political ideology, they should refrain from making baseless personal allegations.

Justice Venkatesh had questioned the basis of Majumder's opinions, asking about the materials or research relied upon. Majumder's counsel had responded that the comments were based on previously published articles. However, they had expressed willingness to delete the objectionable portions.

"If the petitioner makes any amends to the article that was published in the blog, this Court can consider passing further orders in this case," court, therefore, had ordered then.

Case Title: ABHIJIT MAJUMDER  VS INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER