DMK Platform Speaker Sentenced to Two Years Imprisonment for Derogatory Speech
In a significant legal development, DMK platform speaker J Sivaji Krishnamoorthy has been convicted and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment for making obscene and derogatory remarks against Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi and several prominent political leaders during a public meeting in 2023. The verdict was delivered by the 10th metropolitan magistrate in Egmore, P Revathi, on Thursday, marking a decisive conclusion to the high-profile case.
Court Imposes Substantial Fine Alongside Jail Term
Beyond the two-year prison sentence, the court has imposed a substantial fine of Rs 20,000 on the 65-year-old political figure. The case originated from a public meeting organized by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam at Krishnamoorthy Hall in Erukkancheri on June 16, 2023. During his address, Sivaji Krishnamoorthy employed abusive and derogatory language while referencing multiple individuals, including Governor R N Ravi, actor-turned-politician Khushbu Sundar, Leader of the Opposition Edappadi K Palaniswami, former BJP state president K Annamalai, and former minister D Jayakumar.
Legal Charges and Police Investigation Details
The Kodungaiyur police registered a case against Sivaji Krishnamoorthy under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code:
- Section 294(b): Uttering obscene words in public
- Section 504: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace
- Section 505(2): Promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups
Following the registration of the case, authorities arrested him in June 2023. The chargesheet presented by investigators asserted that the inflammatory remarks were capable of disturbing public tranquillity, spreading fear among citizens, and provoking enmity between communities divided along religious, caste, and linguistic lines.
Defense Arguments and Judicial Examination
The defense counsel representing Sivaji Krishnamoorthy maintained throughout the proceedings that police had foisted a false case against their client. However, Magistrate P Revathi stated unequivocally that the court had meticulously examined video evidence submitted during the trial. The judicial examination revealed clear evidence that the accused had delivered an objectionable speech from a public platform in a manner calculated to disturb public order and create enmity between different social groups.
The magistrate emphasized that the content and delivery of the speech crossed legal boundaries, warranting the conviction and sentencing that followed. This verdict underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining public discourse within constitutional limits while addressing speech that threatens social harmony.
