Chennai, Aug 5 (IANS) In a sharp rebuke to sensational claims made by the Madurai Adheenam, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madras High Court, on Tuesday, asked whether the people of Tamil Nadu were so naive as to be provoked by “unnecessary” and inflammatory statements.
The judge’s remarks came during the hearing of a petition filed by ascetic Harihara Gnanasambanda Desigar seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him by the cyber crime wing of the Greater Chennai City Police.
The FIR was based on a complaint lodged by advocate R. Rajendiran.
The Adheenam had alleged that a minor road accident involving his vehicle on May 2 during his travel from Madurai to Chennai was an assassination attempt, and further claimed that the supposed attackers were wearing skull caps, sporting beards, and possibly linked to Pakistan.
Justice Chakravarthy took strong exception to such remarks.
“Just because the occupants of the other car were Muslims, the petitioner appears to have escalated the issue. Are they not your brethren? Are they also not as much Indian as you are?” he asked the Adheenam’s counsel, Ramaswamy Meyyappan.
The judge was responding to Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), R. Muniyapparaj, who opposed the quashing of the FIR.
The APP argued that the Adheenam’s comments had triggered protests across Tamil Nadu and constituted cognisable offences.
The FIR, filed on June 24, invoked several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 192 (provocation with intent to cause rioting), 196(1)(a) (promoting enmity between groups on religious grounds), 353(1)(b) (statements conducing to public mischief), and 353(2) (making false statements to incite communal enmity).
During the hearing, the court was shown CCTV footage of the incident, which convinced the judge that it was the Adheenam’s vehicle that had been driven rashly.
Justice Chakravarthy observed that a major accident had been averted due to the presence of mind shown by the other driver, who applied the brakes at the right moment.
Responding to the court’s queries, the Adheenam’s counsel contended that the ascetic was prompted to speak by media persons at a private event and that he had not named any specific religion.
He also said that the FIR was registered nearly two months after the alleged remarks.
While the APP insisted that multiple private complaints had also been filed against the Adheenam, the judge expressed concern over police resources being diverted for such cases, suggesting they could be better utilised for investigating serious crimes.
The court granted the police time until August 14 to file a counter affidavit in response to the FIR quash petition.
–IANS
aal/khz