Madras High Court
K.Ponmudi vs Uma Anandan on 7 July, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
AND
CRL MP NO. 4867 OF 2026
K.Ponmudi
S/o.late.M.Kandaswamy,
No.1b, Temple Avenue,
Srinagar Colony,
Saidapet,
Chennai-600 015.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Uma Anandan
W/o.S.Anandan,
No.7, Old No.5, Veerabadraswami Street,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 034.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 438 r/w 442
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Act, 2023, praying to set
aside Crl.MP.No.7141 of 2025 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan
Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and pass any such further orders this Honble
Court deems fit.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.S.Aswin Prasanna
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Makesh
__________
Page1 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
Order
At the instance of the learned counsel for appearing for the respondent,
this matter is listed today under the caption, “ For Being Mentioned”.
2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that some typographical error
has been crept in the order dated 02.07.2026 in Crl.RC.No.645 of 2026.
Accordingly, paragraphs – 9, 21 and 22 of the order dated 02.07.2026 shall be
replaced as follows:
“9.Insofar as the requirement of sanction is concerned, the
learned counsel submitted that this Court, in a suo motu
WP.Crl.No.1 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, had itself taken suo motu cognizance of the alleged hate
speech delivered by the accused and directed the Director
General of Police and the Commissioner of Police to take action
as per directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in WP.No.943 of
2021 in letter and spirit and in WP Crl.610 of 2025 the petitioner
prayed to entrust the investigation against the accused to an
independent agency, Special Investigation Team, or the CBI for a
free and fair investigation based upon his complaint. However,
the police concluded that no offence was made out and filed a
closure report. Consequently, this Court directed the
complainant to challenge the closure report by filing a private
__________
Page2 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026complaint. Therefore, according to the respondent, since this
Court had already taken suo motu cognizance of the matter,
there was no necessity to obtain any further sanction from the
competent authority to prosecute the accused.
21.Insofar as the requirement of sanction under Section 217
of BNSS is concerned, previous sanction from the Central
Government or the State Government is required in respect of
offences under Chapter VII, including Sections 196(i)(a), 299,
and Section 302 of BNS. As rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for the respondent, this Court, in W.P.Crl. No.1 of 2025
and W.P.Crl. No.610 of 2025 filed by one G.S. Mani, by order
dated 16.09.2025, took suo motu cognizance, upon noticing the
alleged hate speech made by the accused. The complaint lodged
by the petitioner in W.P.Crl. No.610 of 2025 regarding the
alleged hate speech was also enquired into and closed. Likewise,
several other complaints were enquired into, closure reports
were filed, and copies thereof were served upon the respective
complainants. Thereafter, this Court directed the complainants
to challenge the closure reports and to file private complaints
before the jurisdictional Magistrates. Prior to order dated
16.09.2025, the respondent filed the present private complaint.
The trial Court, after recording the sworn statements of the
respondent and the supporting witnesses, took cognizance and
__________
Page3 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
issued summons to the accused. Once this Court had taken suo
motu cognizance of the alleged hate speech, the trial Court was
not required to await sanction under Section 217 of BNSS, before
proceeding with the complaint.
22.In fact, prior sanction is required only for the offences
under Sections 196(i)(a) and 299 of the BNS. Insofar as the
offence under Section 302 of the BNS is concerned, no prior
sanction is required. Even otherwise, the respondent had
submitted an application seeking sanction to prosecute the
accused, and the same is pending consideration. Application
seeking sanction of Government filed during the month of May
2026.”
3. Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the order and
issue fresh order copy.
07.07.2026
Vv
To
1.The III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
__________
Page4 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
Vv
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
07-07-2026
__________
Page5 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON : 25-06-2026
ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 02-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
AND
CRL MP NO. 4867 OF 2026
K.Ponmudi
S/o.late.M.Kandaswamy,
No.1b, Temple Avenue,
Srinagar Colony,
Saidapet,
Chennai-600 015.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Uma Anandan
W/o.S.Anandan,
No.7, Old No.5, Veerabadraswami Street,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 034.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 438 r/w 442
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Act, 2023, praying to
set aside Crl.MP.No.7141 of 2025 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan
Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and pass any such further orders this Honble
Court deems fit.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.S.Aswin Prasanna
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Makesh
__________
Page6 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
Order
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated
23.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P. No.7141 of 2025 by the learned III Metropolitan
Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, whereby the learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the complaint lodged by the respondent and issued summons to
the accused.
2.The respondent lodged a complaint alleging that on 06.04.2025, during
the centenary celebration held in memory of their party member, Thiruvarur
Thangaraj, at the DMK Youth Wing Head Office, namely, Anbagam, situated at
No.614, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai, the accused delivered an offensive
speech, which was uploaded on the YouTube platform and was consequently
viewed and heard by the general public. According to the respondent, the
petitioner uttered malicious words deliberately promoting hatred towards a
religion, outraging religious feelings, and insulting the religion and the religious
beliefs of the respondent. It was further alleged that the respondent knew very
well that the spoken words, signs, and gestures would be heard and viewed by
citizens of India belonging to the Hindu religion. Therefore, the respondent
lodged a complaint against the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 196(i)(a), 299, and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(BNS). After recording the sworn statements of the respondent and other
__________
Page7 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
witnesses, the trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued summons
to the accused. The order taking cognizance and issuing summons to the
accused is under challenge in this revision.
3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that,
even according to the respondent, no offence is made out against the accused on
the basis of the alleged speech delivered on 06.04.2025, so as to attract the
offences under Sections 196(i)(a) and 299 of the BNS. He further submitted
that, before taking cognizance, previous sanction from the competent
Government authority is mandatory under Section 217 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Therefore, in the absence of such sanction, the order
of taking cognizance cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
4.He further submitted that, insofar as Section 302 of the BNS is
concerned, there must be a deliberate intention to wound the religious feelings
of any person by uttering words, making sounds within the hearing of that
person, making gestures in the sight of that person, or placing any object in the
sight of that person. According to the respondent’s own case, the petitioner
delivered the speech in a closed premises and only in the presence of a
particular group of persons assembled to commemorate the centenary of their
party member, Late Thiruvarur Thangaraj. The respondent neither personally
heard nor witnessed the speech delivered by the petitioner at the venue.
__________
Page8 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
Therefore, the offence under Section 302 of the BNS cannot attracted.
5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submitted that, in order to attract Section 196(i)(a) of the BNS, the speech must
promote enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place
of birth, residence, language, or other grounds prejudicial to the maintenance of
harmony. According to him, the alleged speech does not constitute an offence
under Section 196(i)(a) of the BNS. Likewise, to attract Section 299 of the
BNS, there must be evidence to establish that the act of the accused was
deliberate and malicious, with the intention of outraging the religious feelings of
any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Even from the averments
contained in the complaint, no offence is made out against the accused.
Without considering these facts and circumstances, the trial Court mechanically
took cognizance and issued summons to the accused.
6.In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied upon
several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. In particular,
he relied on the Judgment in the case of Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of A.P.
reported in (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 431, and the relevant paragraph is
extracted hereunder:
“11.This Court has held in Balwant Singh and another vs.
__________
Page9 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026State of Punjab (1995 3 SCC 214) that mens rea is a necessary
ingredient for the offence under Section 153A. Mens rea is an
equally necessary postulate for the offence under Section 505(2)
also as could be discerned from the words “with intent to create
or promote or which is likely to create or promote” as used in
that sub-section.
12.The main distinction between the two offences is that
publication of the word or representation is not necessary under
the former, such publication is sine qua non under Section 505.
The words “whoever makes, publishes or circulates” used in the
setting of Section 505(2) cannot be interpreted disjunctively but
only as supplementary to each other. If it is construed
disjunctively, any one who makes a statement falling within the
meaning of Section 505 would, without publication or
circulation, be liable to conviction. But the same is the effect
with Section 153A also and then that Section would have been
bad for redundancy. The intention of the legislature in
providing two different sections on the same subject would have
been to cover two different fields of similar colour. The fact that
both sections were included as a package in the same amending
enactment lends further support to the said construction.
__________
Page10 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
13.Yet another support to the above interpretation can be
gathered from almost similar words used in Section 199 of the
Penal Code as “whoever by words………makes or publishes any
imputation…….”
14.In Sunilakhya Chowdhury vs. H.M. Jadwet and
another (AIR 1968 Calcutta 266) it has been held that the words
“makes or publishes any imputation” should be interpreted as
words supplementing to each other. A maker of imputation
without publication is not liable to be punished under that
section. We are of the view that the same interpretation is
warranted in respect of the words “makes, publishes or
circulates” in Section 505 IPC also.
15.The common feature in both sections being promotion
of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will “between different”
religious or racial or language or regional groups or castes
and communities it is necessary that atleast two such groups or
communities should be involved. Merely inciting the felling of
one community or group without any reference to any other
community or group cannot attract either of the two sections.
16.The result of the said discussion is that appellant who
has not done anything as against any religious, racial or
__________
Page11 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
linguistic or regional group or community cannot be held guilty
of either the offence under Section 153A or under Section
505(2) of IPC.”
7.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied
on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manzar
Sayeed Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2007) 5
Supreme Court Cases 1, and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“16.Section 153-A of IPC, as extracted hereinabove,
covers a case where a person by words, either spoken or written,
or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes
or attempts to promote, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred
or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or communities or acts prejudicial to
the maintenance of harmony or is likely to disturb the public
tranquility. The gist of the offence is the intention to promote
feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people.
The intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is
the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153A of IPC and
the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of
mens rea on the part of the accused. The intention has to be
__________
Page12 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026judged primarily by the language of the book and the
circumstances in which the book was written and published. The
matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153A must be
read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and
isolated passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one
take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a
meticulous process of inferential reasoning.”
8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that,
although the petitioner delivered the speech in a closed hall, it was subsequently
circulated through social media, and people belonging to all religions viewed
and heard the speech. The accused was a Minister and therefore owed a greater
responsibility towards the general public. Despite holding such office, he
delivered a hate speech targeting persons professing the Hindu religion.
Although the function was intended only for a particular audience, the speech
was widely circulated on social media and was heard by all sections of society.
9.Insofar as the requirement of sanction is concerned, the learned counsel
submitted that this Court, in a suo motu writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, had itself taken suo motu cognizance of the alleged hate
speech delivered by the accused and directed the Director General of Police and
the Commissioner of Police to entrust the investigation against the accused to an
__________
Page13 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
independent agency, Special Investigation Team, or the CBI for a free and fair
investigation in W.P.Crl. No.610 of 2025. However, the police concluded that
no offence was made out and filed a closure report. Consequently, this Court
directed the complainant to challenge the closure report by filing a private
complaint. Therefore, according to the respondent, since this Court had already
taken suo motu cognizance of the matter, there was no necessity to obtain any
further sanction from the competent authority to prosecute the accused.
10.The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that, when
the police had closed the complaint by filing a closure report, no authority
would have been willing to hear the grievance of the respondent or accord
sanction to prosecute the accused, who was then a sitting Minister.
Nevertheless, the respondent had submitted an application seeking sanction to
prosecute the accused, and the same was pending consideration and was likely
to be granted within four weeks. He further contended that the speech delivered
by the accused clearly attracts the offences punishable under Sections 196(i)(a),
11.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also perused the materials
available on record.
__________
Page14 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
12.The petitioner is the sole accused. On the complaint lodged by the
respondent, the trial Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under
Sections 196(i)(a), 299, and 302 of the BNS and issued summons to the
accused. On a perusal of the complaint, it is evident that it was filed alleging
that the accused had intentionally outraged, insulted, and wounded the Hindu
religion, its religious feelings, and beliefs. It is further alleged that the accused
promoted hatred and ill will towards the Hindu religion by impliedly instigating
atheists and members of a particular regional group to act against persons
professing the Hindu religion.
13.It is relevant to extract Section 196(i)(a) of the BNS, which reads as
follows:
“Section 196(i)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
penalizes promoting or attempting to promote disharmony,
enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups based on
religion, race, language, caste, or community. This offense can
be committed via spoken or written words, signs, visual
representations, or digital communication.”
14.Thus, it is clear that, for a speech to amount to hate speech against a
religion, the words spoken should have no purpose other than exposing an
__________
Page15 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
intention to attack another religion by instigating a group of persons to act
against that religion. On a perusal of the speech delivered by the accused, it is
seen that he promoted hatred and ill will between atheists professing atheist
ideology and persons belonging to the Hindu religion. By his intentional,
malicious speech, signs, and visible representations, the accused clearly
attracted the offence under Section 196(i)(a) of the BNS. Further, his speech
promoted hatred and ill will by degrading and attacking Hindu religious
practices, customs, and culture in the presence of a gathering of persons
professing atheist ideology. He also delivered an offensive speech implying an
intention to strengthen and embolden followers of atheist ideology to make
verbal attacks against the Hindu religion in a demeaning and obscene manner,
without fear, by expressing hatred and ill will towards the Hindu religion. The
accused was fully aware of the consequences of his speech, particularly since he
was a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a Minister in the Government.
15.It is relevant to extract Section 299 of the BNS, which reads as
follows:
“Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
penalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the
religious feelings of any class of citizens. It is the equivalent of
Section 295A of the repealed Indian Penal Code (IPC).”
16.The speech delivered by the accused clearly satisfies the essential
__________
Page16 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
ingredients of Section 299 of the BNS. By his speech, he committed acts
amounting to outraging religious feelings, insulting the Hindu religion by
making disrespectful references to its customs, practices, and religious beliefs
with deliberate and malicious intention, thereby causing emotional harm arising
from his inability to propagate atheist ideology among persons professing the
Hindu religion. The accused was fully aware that his speech would reach all
sections of society through social and electronic media. Therefore, he
deliberately and maliciously outraged religious feelings and insulted the religion
and religious beliefs of Hindus with the intention of tarnishing and degrading a
class of people, who did not subscribe to his ideology or beliefs. Accordingly,
the offence under Section 299 of the BNS is clearly attracted.
17.It is also relevant to extract Section 302 of the BNS, which reads as
follows:
“Section 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with
uttering words or making gestures with the deliberate intent to
wound the religious feelings of any person. It penalizes anyone
who intentionally hurts religious sentiments through speech,
sounds, gestures, or placed objects with up to 1 year of
imprisonment, a fine, or both.”
18.The speech of the accused reveals a deliberate intention to wound the
religious beliefs of Hindus by using demeaning words and gestures depicting
__________
Page17 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
the customary practices of the Hindu religion in an obscene manner, allegedly
on account of his inability to propagate atheist ideology. Such speech caused
emotional hurt and wounded the religious feelings of persons belonging to the
Hindu religion.
19.It is also relevant to extract the relevant portion of the speech of the
accused hereunder:
@,e;j mly;! ; xd;yp gl;okd;wk; vd jiyg;g[
bjhpa[';fshf flt[s ; bfhs;ifia gug;g[tjpy;
fhkr;Ritia mjpfk; ifahz;lJ irtnk
itztnk ,jhd; jiyg;g [ irtnk itztnk
fhkr;Rit gug;g[tjpy; ,e;j kfspUf;nf bfh";rk;
ngh ; ,Uf;fh';f ,y;yh Mdh mJf;F kfspUf;nf
epiwa of;bfl;bfhLj;J tutHpr;rpUe;jhh;
hkfpUc;&zd ; mJy xU ,lj;Jy brhy;Ynthk;/
brhy;yyhkh uhkfpUc&;zd ; mJy brhy;;Ynthk;
xUj;jd; jg;gh epidr;Rf;fhjP';f kfsph; xU
tpiykhJ tPl;Lf;F xUj;jd ; nghwhd ; nghFk;nghJ
m’;f me;j mk;kh nff;FJ/ epg;ghl;L eP’;f
irtkh itztkh mg;god;D nff;FJ/ mtDf;F
xd;Dk; g[hpay/ mtd; gzk; vt;tnsh m”;RFL 10
FLd;D nfl;lhd;dh iul;/ vd;dlh ,’;f
te;JUf;fnwhk; ehk xU tpiykhJ tPl;Lf;F ek;ks
te;J itrkh itztkhd;D nff;Fwh’;f
mg;god;D nfl;lhd;/ me;j mk;kh brhy;ypr;rhd;
__________
Page18 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
vd;d xd;Dk; g[hpaiyah mg;god;Drhd;/ xd;Dk;
,y;yirtk;dh ,g;go itztkdh ,g;god;Dr;rhd;/
xd;Dk; g[hpay/ irtk;dh ,g;go itztk;dh ,g;go
xd;Dk ; g[hpay vd;d brhy;w ,J tpg[jp ,Jjhd;
mJy vd;d ,Uf;F mg;god;dh ,y;y
irtk;dhgLj;JfpwJ itztk;dh epd;DfpwJ
epd;D';fdh m";RgLj;jhgj;J}d; ,bjy;yhk; ,g;g
,e;j mly;!;xd;ypgl;o kd;wj;jpy ; eh';f ngrp
ngrp ,e;j jpuhtpl ,af;fj;jpDila bfhs;iffis
gug;g[tjw;fhf vLj;Jf;bfhz;l eltof;if/@
20.In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amish Devgan
Vs. Union of India reported in (2021) 1 SCC 1, the relevant portion reads as
follows:
“There are three distinct elements that legislatures and
courts can use to define and identify “hate speech” namely –
content-based element, intent-based element and harm-based
element (or impact-based element).
Marwick, Alice E. and Miller, Ross W.: “Online
Harassment, Defamation, and Hateful Speech: A Primer
of the Legal Landscape” (10-6-2014) (Fordham Center on
Law and Information Policy Report), relied on“Content” has relation with the subject-matter, but is not
synonymous with the subject-matter. “Content” has more to do__________
Page19 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026with the expression, language and message which should be to
vilify, demean and incite psychosocial hatred or physical
violence against the targeted group. The content-based element
involves open use of words and phrases generally considered to
be offensive to a particular community and objectively offensive
to the society. It can include use of certain symbols and
iconography. By applying objective standards, one knows or
has reasonable grounds to know that the content would allow
anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race,
colour, creed, religion or gender.
Richard Delgado, “Words that Wound: A Tort
Action for Racial Insults, Epithets, and Name-Calling”, 17
Harv CR-CLL Rev 133 (1982); Mari J.Matsuda: “Public
Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s
Story”, 87 Mich L Rev 2320 (1989); Kenneth D.Ward:
“Free Speech and the Development of Liberal Virtues: An
Examination of the Controversies Involving Flag Burning
and Hate Speech”, 52 U Miami K Rev 733 (1998),
referred to
The intent-based element of “hate speech” requires the
speaker’s message to intend only to promote hatred, violence or
resentment against a particular class or group without
communicating any legitimate message. This requires subjective
intent on the part of the speaker to target the group or person
associated with the class/group.
The harm or impact-based element refers to the
consequences of the “hate speech”, that is harm to the victim
which can be violent or such as loss of self-esteem, economic or
social subordination, physical and mental stress, silencing of the
__________
Page20 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026victim and effective exclusion from the political arena.”
21.Insofar as the requirement of sanction under Section 217 of BNSS is
concerned, previous sanction from the Central Government or the State
Government is required in respect of offences under Chapter VII, including
Sections 196(i)(a), 299, and Section 302 of BNS. As rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the respondent, this Court, in W.P.Crl. No.1 of 2025 and
W.P.Crl. No.610 of 2025 filed by one G.S. Mani, by order dated 16.09.2025,
took suo motu cognizance, upon noticing the alleged hate speech made by the
accused. The complaint lodged by the petitioner in W.P.Crl. No.610 of 2025
regarding the alleged hate speech was also enquired into and closed. Likewise,
several other complaints were enquired into, closure reports were filed, and
copies thereof were served upon the respective complainants. Thereafter, this
Court directed the complainants to challenge the closure reports and to file
private complaints before the jurisdictional Magistrates. Pursuant thereto, the
respondent filed the present private complaint. The trial Court, after recording
the sworn statements of the respondent and the supporting witnesses, took
cognizance and issued summons to the accused. Once this Court had taken
suo motu cognizance of the alleged hate speech, the trial Court was not required
to await sanction under Section 217 of BNSS, before proceeding with the
complaint.
22.In fact, prior sanction is required only for the offences under Sections
__________
Page21 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
196(i)(a) and 299 of the BNS. Insofar as the offence under Section 302 of the
BNS is concerned, no prior sanction is required. Even otherwise, the
respondent had submitted an application seeking sanction to prosecute the
accused, and the same is pending consideration. Until April 2026, the accused
continued to be a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the
ruling party, and therefore the respondent’s request remained pending without
any decision either granting or refusing sanction.
23.In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the
order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No.3019 of 2024 in the case of Shivendra Nath Verma v. Union of
India, the relevant portion reads as follows:
“During the course of hearing, it was argued on behalf of
the appellant, Shivendra Nath Verma, that as the sanction dated
27.07.2022 was obtained after the order of cognizance dated
12.10.2020, the said sanction shuold be treated as void in view
of the decision of this Court in Nanjappa V. State of Karnataka.
We are not inclined to accept the said submission. The ratio of
the said decision is to the effect that the trial Court could not
have taken cognizance in view of the bar contained in Section
19(1) of the 1988 Act. We do not think that the ratio of the
aforesaid decision extends to invalidating the sanction granted,
__________
Page22 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
after the order taking cognizance was passed.”
24.Although the said judgment arose under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that grant of
sanction even after taking cognizance would not invalidate the proceedings.
25.In view of the above, the offences under Sections 196(i)(a), 299, and
302 of the BNS are clearly made out against the accused. Accordingly, the trial
Court rightly took cognizance and issued summons to the accused. This Court
finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court.
26.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. The trial
Court is directed to complete the trial, within a period of six months, from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
02-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AH
To
1.The III Metropolitan Magistrate,
George Town, Chennai.
__________
Page23 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
AH
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
CRL RC No. 645 of 2026
AND
CRL MP NO. 4867 OF 2026
02-07-2026
__________
Page24 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
