Introduction:

The Supreme Court, on May 14, declined to quash criminal cases against Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) National Secretary H Raja. The cases were filed for his alleged derogatory remarks against Dravidian movement leader Periyar, former Tamil Nadu Minister M Karunanidhi, and DMK party leaders. The bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra, heard the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Madras High Court’s order. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu represented Raja.

Arguments of Both Sides:

H Raja’s defense, led by Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, contended that the remarks made by Raja did not warrant criminal prosecution. Naidu argued that the comments were within the realm of political discourse and freedom of speech. Raja’s counsel also highlighted that the petitioner’s statements, though controversial, did not intend to provoke violence or disturb public order. It was further argued that the Madras High Court erred in not quashing the FIRs as the remarks were made in a personal capacity and not as part of any official statement from the BJP.

The state, represented by the prosecution, maintained that Raja’s remarks were not merely controversial but inflammatory, aimed at inciting violence and hatred. The prosecution argued that Raja had a history of making provocative statements, and his comments were a clear violation of Sections 153, 504, and 509 of the IPC. The state further argued that the remarks were not protected under freedom of speech as they crossed the line into hate speech, posing a threat to public order and societal harmony. The state supported the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the necessity of holding Raja accountable for his actions to maintain public order and prevent potential violence.

High Court’s Observations:

The Madras High Court had earlier refused to quash the criminal cases against Raja. The High Court noted Raja’s tendency to make irresponsible and damaging comments, which repeatedly led him into legal trouble. The court referenced the wise words of Thiruvalluvar, highlighting the importance of guarding one’s tongue to avoid misery and trouble. The High Court observed that Raja’s comments against Periyar and other Dravidian leaders were capable of provoking violence and disturbing public order. The court also noted that Raja’s remarks were not just political criticisms but bordered on hate speech, which could create significant unrest among followers of Periyarism.

Supreme Court’s Judgement:

Upholding the Madras High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court refused to quash the criminal cases against H Raja. The bench emphasized the need for politicians to be cautious with their public statements, pointing out that the level of public discourse should not be reduced to inflammatory remarks. Justice Hrishikesh Roy stated that politicians must be circumspect about their utterances to avoid inciting public unrest. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s assessment that Raja’s comments had the potential to disrupt public order and constituted an offense under the relevant sections of the IPC.