Madras HC Upholds Cognizance Against Minister K. Ponmudi for Alleged Hate Speech Under BNS Sections 196, 299 and 302

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the revision petition filed by former Tamil Nadu Minister K. Ponmudi, holding that the trial court rightly took cognizance of hate speech charges without prior sanction, and directed the trial court to complete proceedings within six months.

The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an order by which the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai took cognizance of hate speech charges against K. Ponmudi, a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a former Minister in the Tamil Nadu Government. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, sitting singly, dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by Ponmudi under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The charges arise from a speech delivered on 6 April 2025 at a DMK Youth Wing function. The court held that the ingredients of Sections 196(i)(a), 299, and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) were prima facie made out, and that prior sanction under Section 217 of the BNSS was not a bar to the cognizance order given the circumstances of the case.

The Speech and the Complaint Before the Magistrate

On 6 April 2025, Ponmudi delivered a speech at a centenary celebration held in memory of DMK party member Thiruvarur Thangaraj, at Anbagam, the DMK Youth Wing Head Office at No. 614, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. The speech was recorded and uploaded to YouTube, where it was publicly accessible.

Uma Anandan, the respondent, lodged a private complaint alleging that Ponmudi had uttered words deliberately promoting hatred towards a religion, outraging religious feelings, and insulting the religion and religious beliefs of persons professing the Hindu faith. She alleged that Ponmudi was fully aware that his words, signs, and gestures would be heard and viewed by Hindus across India.

The complaint invoked three provisions of the BNS: Section 196(i)(a), which penalises promoting or attempting to promote disharmony, enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups based on religion, race, language, caste, or community; Section 299, the equivalent of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which penalises deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens; and Section 302, which penalises intentionally wounding the religious feelings of any person through words, sounds, gestures, or placed objects, carrying up to one year of imprisonment or fine or both.

After recording the sworn statements of the complainant and supporting witnesses, the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to Ponmudi by order dated 23 February 2026. Ponmudi challenged that order before the High Court by filing CRL RC No. 645 of 2026.

Arguments Advanced on Behalf of the Petitioner

Senior Counsel Mr. N.R. Elango, appearing for Ponmudi, raised three distinct lines of attack against the cognizance order.

On the sanction question, he submitted that Section 217 of the BNSS mandates prior sanction from the competent Government authority before cognizance can be taken of offences falling under Chapter VII of the BNS, which includes Sections 196(i)(a) and 299. Without such sanction, he argued, the cognizance order could not be sustained.

On Section 302 of the BNS, he submitted that the section requires a deliberate intention to wound the religious feelings of a person by uttering words within that person's hearing, making gestures within that person's sight, or placing objects within that person's sight. He pointed out that the speech was delivered inside closed premises to a gathering assembled to commemorate Thiruvarur Thangaraj, and that the complainant neither personally heard nor witnessed the speech at the venue. The necessary hearing or visual perception by the aggrieved person, he argued, was therefore absent.

On Sections 196(i)(a) and 299, he submitted that the speech did not, even on the complaint's own averments, constitute promotion of enmity between two groups or a deliberate and malicious act of outraging religious feelings. He contended that the Magistrate took cognizance mechanically without applying the required ingredients of each offence.

In support of the mens rea requirement, the Senior Counsel relied on Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P., (1997) 7 SCC 431, where the Supreme Court held that mens rea is a necessary ingredient for the offence of promoting enmity, and that at least two groups must be involved for such an offence to be attracted. He also relied on Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court reiterated that “the intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non” of the offence, and that the matter complained of must be read as a whole rather than through isolated passages.

The Respondent's Position and the Suo Motu Background

Counsel for the respondent, Mr. S. Makesh, submitted that although the speech was delivered in a closed hall, it was subsequently circulated through social media and was heard and viewed by persons of all religions. He emphasised that Ponmudi was a Minister at the time and owed a heightened responsibility to the public.

On the sanction issue, he brought to the court's attention a significant procedural antecedent. The Madras High Court had, in W.P.Crl. No. 1 of 2025 and W.P.Crl. No. 610 of 2025 filed by one G.S. Mani, taken suo motu cognizance of the alleged hate speech by order dated 16 September 2025. The police had investigated but filed a closure report concluding that no offence was made out. The High Court thereafter directed the complainants, including the present respondent, to challenge the closure reports by filing private complaints before the jurisdictional Magistrates. The present complaint was filed pursuant to that direction.

On the sanction application, the respondent submitted that she had applied for sanction to prosecute the accused but received no decision, because Ponmudi was a sitting MLA belonging to the ruling party and no authority was willing to act on the application.

He also relied on the Supreme Court's order dated 22 July 2024 in Shivendra Nath Verma v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 3019 of 2024, where the court held that sanction granted even after the order taking cognizance was passed would not invalidate the proceedings.

On the substantive ingredients of hate speech, the respondent relied on Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court identified three elements used to define hate speech: a content-based element (expression likely to vilify or demean a targeted group), an intent-based element (speaker's message intends only to promote hatred or resentment against a class), and a harm-based element (consequences including emotional harm, loss of self-esteem, and social subordination).

The Court's Analysis of the Three BNS Provisions

Justice Ilanthiraiyan examined each of the three charged provisions in sequence.

On Section 196(i)(a), the court observed that for a speech to amount to hate speech against a religion, the words must have no purpose other than exposing an intention to attack another religion by instigating a group to act against it. On a reading of the actual speech, the court found that Ponmudi promoted hatred and ill-will between atheists and persons belonging to the Hindu religion, attacked Hindu religious practices, customs, and culture before a gathering of persons professing atheist ideology, and implied an intention to strengthen followers of atheist ideology to make verbal attacks against the Hindu religion in a demeaning and obscene manner. The court noted that Ponmudi, as an MLA and Minister, was fully aware of the consequences of such a speech.

On Section 299, the court found that the speech involved disrespectful references to Hindu customs, practices, and religious beliefs with deliberate and malicious intention. The court observed that Ponmudi was fully aware his speech would reach all sections of society through social and electronic media, and that he deliberately and maliciously insulted the religion and religious beliefs of Hindus with the intention of tarnishing and degrading those who did not subscribe to his ideology.

On Section 302, the court found that the speech revealed a deliberate intention to wound the religious beliefs of Hindus by using demeaning words and gestures depicting Hindu customary practices in an obscene manner, causing emotional hurt to persons belonging to the Hindu religion.

The court extracted the original Tamil text of the speech from the complaint and read it in the context of each offence. It concluded that the ingredients of all three sections were clearly made out on the face of the complaint and the sworn statements recorded by the Magistrate.

The Sanction Requirement Under Section 217 of the BNSS

The court acknowledged that prior sanction from the Central or State Government is required under Section 217 of the BNSS for offences under Chapter VII of the BNS, which covers Sections 196(i)(a) and 299. However, the court held that sanction was not a bar in the present case for two reasons.

The court pointed out that the High Court had itself taken suo motu cognizance of the same hate speech in the writ proceedings, and had directed the complainants to file private complaints after the police closed the matter. Given that the High Court had already exercised supervisory cognizance over the matter, the trial Magistrate was not required to await sanction before proceeding with the private complaint.

The court also noted that, as a matter of practical reality, the respondent's sanction application had remained pending without any decision because the accused was a sitting MLA of the ruling party until at least April 2026. Drawing on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Shivendra Nath Verma, the court held that even if sanction were granted after cognizance, it would not invalidate the proceedings. Separately, the court confirmed that Section 302 of the BNS does not require any prior sanction at all.

Order

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan found no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. CRL RC No. 645 of 2026 was dismissed. The trial court was directed to complete the trial within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The connected miscellaneous petition, CRL MP No. 4867 of 2026, was closed.