Chennai Magistrate Court Summons Former DMK Minister in Controversial Speech Case
A city magistrate court in Chennai has issued summons to former DMK minister K Ponmudi, following a private complaint filed by BJP West Mambalam councillor Uma Anand. The complaint alleges that Ponmudi made derogatory remarks against Shaivism, Vaishnavism, and women during a public meeting, sparking legal action.
Court's Prima Facie Finding and Legal Basis
III Metropolitan Magistrate N Vasudevan, in his order, observed that a prima facie case has been established against Ponmudi. The magistrate noted that the accused's speech, which is available on social media, led to a complaint being lodged with the police. After the police filed a closure report, the complainant proceeded with a private complaint, prompting the court's intervention.
The court has directed Ponmudi to appear before it on March 24, 2025. In his detailed remarks, Magistrate Vasudevan stated, "A careful perusal of records would reveal that the accused made the speech available on social media. The complainant lodged a complaint before the police. The police filed a closure report. The complainant filed a private complaint."
Charges Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
The magistrate found grounds for offences under specific sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including:
- Section 196(i)(a): Attempting to promote disharmony between different religious, racial, language, or regional groups or castes using spoken or written words, signs, or electronic communication.
- Section 299: Malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
- Section 302: Deliberate wounding of religious feelings.
Based on this assessment, the court declared, "This court is inclined to take cognisance of the offences against the accused. Issue summons to accused."
Background and High Court's Earlier Decision
This development follows a previous ruling by the Madras High Court. On September 16, 2025, the high court closed a suo motu petition that had been initiated against Ponmudi in connection with the same incident. However, the high court made significant observations during its proceedings.
The court emphasized that individuals holding high public positions must exercise caution and refrain from making such remarks in public speeches. Additionally, it granted liberty to over 100 complainants who had registered cases across the state, allowing them to approach the concerned magistrate for any further relief.
The juxtaposition of the high court's closure of the suo motu plea and the magistrate court's issuance of summons highlights the ongoing legal complexities in this matter. While the high court opted not to pursue the case on its own motion, the magistrate found sufficient evidence to proceed based on the private complaint, underscoring the different legal avenues available in such disputes.
