Annamalai's comment on Christian missionary amounts to hate speech: HC

CHENNAI: While dealing with allegations of hate speech, the court should not merely confine itself to judging its immediate impact but should necessarily take into consideration that such statements can cause silent harm to the psyche of the targeted group, which, at a later point, would have their desired effect in terms of violence - even resulting in genocide – said Justice N Anand Venkatesh.

The judge made the observation while dismissing the petition filed by State BJP president K Annamalai seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him in judicial magistrate Salem, for allegedly making vituperative comments against a Christian missionary.

From the speech of the petitioner, it is unmistakable that he was attempting to portray a calculated attempt made by a Christian missionary NGO, which is funded internationally, to destroy Hindu culture., wrote the judge.

Therefore, It is clear that there exists a prima facie intent to create hatred towards a particular religion. These statements were made by a person of stature, whose words have a lot of impact on the masses and as a result, have a psychological impact on the targeted group, read the judgment. "History has taught us what happened to the Jews during the Second World War, which initially started as a hate speech by Hitler and ultimately ended as a genocide", read the judgment.

The judge also opined that communalism is a challenge to secularism.

The communally delicate sensitivity of the people has been exploited by politically interested and fringe groups for their own selfish gains, wrote the judge.

The Apex Court once made it very clear that every such hate speech need not immediately result in violence or disturbance to public order and that it can have various impacts on the group, to which, such statements were aimed at. It was also warned that such statements can act like a ticking bomb, which will wait to burst at the appropriate point of time by creating violence and in the most extreme cases, even to genocide. These observations are more relevant in this social media era, wrote the judge.

The judge also cited the judgment passed by Justice B.V Nagarathna, in the Kaushal Kishor vs State of U.P., (2023) case and wrote that hate speech strikes at each of the foundational values and that it violates the fraternity of citizens from diverse backgrounds, which is the sine qua non of a cohesive society based on plurality and multiculturalism, which is the fabric of the nation.

Therefore, it was emphasized that public functionaries, persons of influence, and celebrities owe a duty to the citizenry at large to be more responsible and restrained in their speech, read the judgment.

On December 15, 2022, the complainant V Piyush, an environmental activist made an application before judicial magistrate Salem, alleging that Annamalai's speech about the ban on bursting crackers during Diwali by accusing Christian missionary NGO, spread hatred between two communities.

"A Judge, who decides these cases, cannot be sitting in a pulpit nor would ignore what is happening in the society during the relevant point of time", read the judgment. A Judge, who is holding a Constitutional position, has made his oath on the Constitution of India and therefore, he is duty bound to ensure that the basic features of the Constitution and the fabric of this country are not attempted to be destroyed, wrote the judge and dismissed the plea of Annamalai seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.