Madras HC Quashes Sedition Case Against Publishers of Book Recording Tamizharasan's 1967 Separatist Statement
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that merely recording a 1967 speech calling for Tamil Nadu's secession cannot incite hatred in today's social milieu.
The Madras High Court on 29 June 2026 quashed a sedition charge sheet filed against two accused persons who ran a publishing house called Kalagam Pathippagam. The case arose from a book released on 12 October 2014 that recorded a 1967 statement by a person named Tamizharasan, in which he had called for Tamil Nadu to become a separate nation and proclaimed that guerilla warfare would be adopted. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, sitting singly, held that recording a historical statement of this kind — one that would cause no more than annoyance in present-day India — falls well short of the threshold for the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
The Charge Sheet and the Accused
PRC No. 72 of 2019 was pending before the 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai. The first accused, Elangovan, had authored and compiled the book titled Thamizh Thesiya Thalaiver Thamizharasanin Vazhvum Aramum. He had since died by the time the quashing petition reached the High Court. The petitioners — Keera @ Moorthi and Thamil Bala — were accused Nos. 2 and 3, identified as the persons who ran Kalagam Pathippagam, the publishing house through which the book was released at a public function held at RKV Preview Theatre, Chennai.
The charge sheet alleged that the book contained a recording of Tamizharasan's proclamation in Coimbatore in 1967 that Tamil Nadu should be a separate nation and that guerilla warfare should be organised to achieve secession. The police filed the charge sheet on the basis that this content amounted to seditious material under Section 124A IPC.
The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking to call for the records and quash the proceedings.
Petitioners' Reliance on the Division Bench Precedent
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P. Pugalenthi, pointed the court to a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court concerning an identical book titled Thozhir Eninum Thamizh Thesiya Viduthalaikkalamum. That bench had examined the issue in the light of the Supreme Court's judgment in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, reported as (2020) 7 SCC 433, which held that the rigours of Section 124A IPC were “not in tune with the current social milieu.” The Division Bench had quashed the First Information Report in that case, finding that the mere statement in the book did not entitle the police to file a charge under Section 124A IPC.
The petitioners argued that the same yardstick applied to the present charge sheet, making the pending proceedings liable to be quashed.
The State's Objection
The Government Advocate, Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, appearing for the respondent police, resisted the petition. He contended that a book containing a statement that Tamil Nadu must be seceded and proclaimed as a separate State, combined with a call for guerilla warfare, would amount to sedition. On that basis, he argued the charge sheet was justified.
How Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy Reasoned
The judge began by identifying the core of the offence. Sedition, as defined through Section 124A IPC, requires that the written or visible representation bring into hatred, contempt, or excite disaffection towards the Government established by law. The court accepted that the Supreme Court in S.G. Vombatkere had made clear that acts must be considered in the light of the current social milieu and the times in which we live.
Applying that standard, the court reasoned that when Tamizharasan made his speech in 1967 and when he formed a Tamil liberation front, such a publication might well have incited hatred or contempt towards the Government of India. That was a different era. In 2026, however, India as a nation is, in the court's assessment, unified by heart and soul. The judge observed that if any person in the present day speaks about dividing Tamil Nadu into a separate nation, that person would be seen as having mental health issues, and such a statement would not excite hatred among the general public. At most, it would cause annoyance.
The court therefore concluded that mere publication of that sentence, in the present social milieu, cannot be treated as inciting hatred against the nation or the Government of India.
A further and distinct ground reinforced the conclusion. The book did not present Tamizharasan's call for secession and guerilla warfare as a present-day programme. It recorded what had happened historically — that in 1967, Tamizharasan announced those positions. The court held that the mere recording of a historical event does not even amount to an attempt to incite hatred.
Outcome
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy allowed the Criminal Original Petition. The final report and all further proceedings in PRC No. 72 of 2019, on the file of the 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, were quashed. The connected miscellaneous petition, Crl.M.P. No. 10684 of 2026, was closed as a consequence.