Madras HC says opposition’s dissent must be allowed; quashes case against C Ve Shanmugam
The prosecution failed to prove the allegation that the public order had been disrupted because of the speech delivered by Shanmugam, and the State must have viewed his speech from the eyes of the public, wrote the judge.
Madras High Court (File Image)
CHENNAI: An opposition party highlighting the failures and shortcomings of the ruling government is a democratic norm; thus, the free speech of citizens cannot be stifled by the implication of criminal cases, held the Madras High Court and quashed the pending case against former AIADMK minister C Ve Shanmugam for allegedly making defamatory remarks against the Chief Minister MK Stalin.
Article 19 (1) (a) of Indian Constitution allows to express dissent, therefore the speech of C Ve Shanmugam can only be construed as dissent and criticism about the present State government and the speech of the former minister is not defamatory, held Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, while quashing the case.
The prosecution failed to prove the allegation that the public order had been disrupted because of the speech delivered by Shanmugam, and the State must have viewed his speech from the eyes of the public, wrote the judge.
State, being the holder of a public office, must be thick-skinned and change its policy decisions based on the criticism of the opposition party, read the order.
The judge added that being a Rajya Sabha member, Shanmugam should have avoided hate speech while addressing the public meeting.
C Ve Shanmugam organised a demonstration against the State at Villupuram, on July 20, 2023, alleging that due to misadministration inflation rate had increased, affecting the common public.
During the demonstration, it was alleged that the former minister called the Chief Minister MK Stalin a puppet, who has no awareness about what is happening in the State.
It was alleged that the speech was delivered to tarnish the image of the CM, and the Villupuram police booked C Ve Shanmugam under sections 499 (making false statements with intent to tarnish someone's reputation and 500 (punishment for defamation).
The principal sessions court, Villupuram, took cognisance of the case and commenced the trial. Aggrieved by this, the former minister moved the HC to quash the pending case.
Senior counsel Vijay Narayan for the former minister submitted that it is a case, nothing but a politically motivated one.
