Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Amit Malviya, Calls Udhayanidhi’s Remarks on Sanatana Dharma ‘Hate Speech’
Court says BJP leader’s post not criminal, but minister’s speech crossed limits
Ruling reignites debate on free speech, religion, and politics in Tamil Nadu
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: January 21, 2026:
In a landmark judgment, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed the FIR filed against BJP IT cell head Amit Malviya for allegedly distorting remarks made by Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin on Sanatana Dharma. The court, while dismissing the case, observed that Udhayanidhi’s controversial 2023 speech amounted to hate speech, as he called for the “eradication” of Sanatana Dharma rather than mere opposition.
Justice S. Srimathy, delivering the verdict on January 20, 2026, said continuing criminal proceedings against Malviya would amount to an abuse of law, especially when no FIR was filed against Udhayanidhi himself despite his remarks.
Case Background
- In September 2023, Udhayanidhi Stalin, speaking at a conference in Chennai, compared Sanatana Dharma to “malaria and dengue” and said it should be eradicated.
- Amit Malviya posted on social media highlighting the remarks, accusing the DMK minister of attacking Hinduism.
- The Tiruchi city police registered an FIR against Malviya for allegedly distorting Udhayanidhi’s comments.
- Malviya challenged the FIR in the High Court, arguing that his post was based on the minister’s own words.
The High Court agreed, noting that Udhayanidhi’s speech itself was problematic and amounted to hate speech.
Also Read: Supreme Court to Decide if Enforcement Directorate Can File Writ Petitions Under Article 226
Court’s Observations
Justice Srimathy made several key points:
- Udhayanidhi’s remarks were hate speech: The judge said the minister’s use of the Tamil word ozhippu (eradication) went beyond criticism and called for elimination of a faith.
- No FIR against Udhayanidhi: The court questioned why Malviya faced criminal action while the minister did not.
- Abuse of process: Continuing the FIR against Malviya would be unjust and politically motivated.
- Freedom of expression: Malviya’s post fell within the ambit of free speech, as it was based on actual remarks made by a public figure.
Broader Implications
This ruling has wider political and social implications:
Also Read: Supreme Court Protects Punjab Kesari, says “Newspapers Cannot Be Stopped”
- Free speech vs hate speech: The judgment distinguishes between legitimate criticism and speech that incites hatred.
- Political accountability: Ministers and public figures must exercise caution in their remarks on religion.
- Judicial precedent: The case sets an example for courts to scrutinize political FIRs that may be used to silence opponents.
- Religious sensitivity: The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting religious sentiments while balancing free speech.
Reactions
- BJP leaders: Welcomed the verdict, calling it a victory for free speech.
- DMK supporters: Criticized the ruling, arguing that Udhayanidhi’s remarks were taken out of context.
- Legal experts: Said the judgment reinforces constitutional limits on speech and highlights misuse of FIRs for political purposes.
- Public sentiment: The case has reignited debates on the role of religion in politics and the boundaries of criticism.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court’s decision to quash the FIR against Amit Malviya while labelling Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks on Sanatana Dharma as hate speech is a significant moment in India’s ongoing debate over free speech, religion, and politics.
Also Read: Uttarakhand High Court Allows Ganga Aarti at Triveni Ghat with Strict Conditions
By protecting Malviya’s right to expression and holding Udhayanidhi accountable for his words, the court has set a precedent that could shape future cases involving political speech and religious sensitivity.
Keywords for SEO (Google + ChatGPT)
- Madras High Court Amit Malviya FIR quashed
- Udhayanidhi Stalin Sanatana Dharma hate speech
- BJP leader Amit Malviya court case
- Tamil Nadu politics Sanatana Dharma remarks
- Free speech vs hate speech India
- DMK minister Udhayanidhi Stalin controversy
- Sanatana Dharma eradication speech Tamil Nadu
- Madurai Bench HC ruling Amit Malviya
- Political FIRs and free speech India
- Religion and politics court cases India
Also Read: Allahabad High Court: Right to Exams Is Part of Right to Life