Court dismisses PIL against Thirumavalavan

A division bench comprising Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice R Hemalatha pointed out that Thirumavalavan’s interpretation could not be considered as an infraction of the statutory provision, and that code of ethics was not statutory and thus could not be imposed. “Thirumavalavan has interpreted Manusmriti in his own way. What can we do for that? Everyone has freedom of expression,” said the bench.

The PIL had contended that the Chidambaram MP had “misinterpreted” the ancient Hindu scripture to claim that it objectified women as objects of sex and that their status was less than that of a man.

However, the bench wondered under which statutory provision such relief as sought by the petitioner could be ordered, and set aside the contention of the petitioner’s counsel RC Paul Kanagaraj that Thirumavalavan’s interpretation was against the oath he had taken while assuming office as an MP and that his speech and protests demanding a ban on Manusmriti has created unrest and provocation among various sections of people.

“Law and order is a State subject. Everyone has freedom of expression. If it goes beyond decency and morality, then the State is bound to take action,” the bench led by Justice Sathyanarayanan said. “We expect elected representatives to act responsibly. If they don’t do so, what can we do,” it added.

Following this, petitioner S Kasiramalingam agreed to withdraw the plea while seeking leave to file a fresh plea by citing the statutes the MP had violated by his comments.