The Madras High Court has quashed a case registered against AIADMK MP C. Ve. Shanmugam for his comments against Chief Minister MK Stalin and other leaders during a hunger strike.
A single bench of Justice G Jayachandran noted that Shanmugam’s alleged remarks did not disrupt harmony or affect public tranquillity.
The court also observed that the complaints were filed 40 days after the alleged speeches were made, indicating that no untoward incidents occurred as a result of the speech. While the court acknowledged that the utterances were unparliamentary, it held that they did not constitute the offences alleged against Shanmugam.
Justice Jayachandran was hearing a petition filed by C. Ve. Shanmugam seeking to quash the cases against him. In 2022, while participating in a hunger strike organized by his party, Shanmugam had allegedly made remarks regarding the state government’s inaction, leading to a case being registered under Sections 153A, 504, 505(1)(b), and 506(1) of the IPC.
In his petition, the AIADMK MP contended that he was being maliciously targeted for being vocal against the ruling party. He argued that the alleged offences were not applicable as they lacked the necessary elements and that registering a case against him would violate his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution. He further asserted that expressing dissent over government inaction could not be construed as inciting violence or provoking enmity between different groups.
The State opposed Shanmugam’s plea, arguing that, as a sitting Member of Parliament and former Minister, he had failed to maintain the decorum and dignity of his office. It was reported that during the hunger strike, Shanmugam, along with others, had used offensive language against other Ministers and the Chief Minister, which allegedly insulted and provoked members of the DMK party and created ill-will between groups.
However, the court noted that the complaint was registered by a DMK party member after consulting with party members, and not by an affected public servant. The court further observed that the contents of the speech indicated that Shanmugam aimed to highlight the alleged inefficiency of the ruling party, which did not constitute the offences alleged.
As a result, the court allowed the petition and quashed the cases against Shanmugam.
