Madras HC Quashes FIR Against Advocate Who Gave Speech at 2016 Indian National League Meeting Under UAPA and IPC
Nine years after an FIR was lodged, Madras HC holds that a speech ending in a call for unity cannot amount to communal incitement under IPC or UAPA.
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Madras, on 14 July 2026 quashed an FIR registered in 2017 against S. Kumaradevan, an advocate arrayed as the seventh accused in Crime No. 1926 of 2017 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai. The case arose from a public meeting held on 19 December 2016 under the banner of the Indian National League Party. The petitioner was charged under Sections 153, 153(1)(a) and (b), 504, 505(1)(b) and (c), and 505(2) of the IPC read with Section 2(o) and Section 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The court held that when a speech ends with an appeal for the people to be united, an intention to divide people on communal lines cannot be attributed to the speaker.
The FIR and the Charges
Crime No. 1926 of 2017 was registered by the Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai, in connection with a public meeting organised by the accused on 19 December 2016 on behalf of the Indian National League Party. Kumaradevan, described as an advocate of one of the other accused persons and as belonging to the Dravidar Kazhagam organisation, delivered a speech at that meeting. It is that speech which formed the basis of the prosecution against him.
The charges under the IPC covered provisions relating to promoting enmity between classes, imputations prejudicial to national integration, and statements conducing to public mischief. The UAPA charges related to unlawful activity under Section 13(1)(b) read with the definition in Section 2(o). The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sought to call for the records and quash the FIR as against the petitioner alone.
The Speech Under Scrutiny
The court extracted the speech in full. In substance, the petitioner addressed Muslim friends who raised their voices when Muslim women were affected, and appealed to them to also raise their voice when Hindu women were similarly affected, because Hindu women too featured prominently in matrimonial and divorce cases. He referred to the existence of different personal law systems and used the phrase “Hindu terrorism” while urging that all communities unite to oppose those who divide people.
The speech closed with an appeal that people should stand together to completely eliminate acts that divide communities. That closing appeal — calling for unity rather than division — was central to the court's analysis.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Chakravarthy noted that a Division Bench of the Madras High Court had already, in T. Vetrithamilan v. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police and Another in Crl.OP.No. 5363 of 2021 decided on 06 August 2025, considered the Supreme Court's judgment in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, (2022) 7 SCC 433, and held that for offences of this character, the prevailing social milieu must be taken into account when determining whether a petitioner could have committed the alleged offence.
Applying that framework to the present case, the court observed that the speech ends with an appeal for unity, and it therefore cannot be said that the speaker's intention was to divide people on communal lines. The use of the phrase “Hindu terrorism” was inappropriate, but the court held that the use of that phrase alone would not amount to an offence under Section 153, Section 153(1), or the other provisions invoked.
The court further noted that the allegation rested entirely on the speech itself and was not accompanied by any other act on the part of the petitioner. Where a bare speech, without any accompanying conduct, is the sole basis of the prosecution, the offences were held to be not made out.
A separate ground also weighed with the court: the occurrence dates to 2016, the FIR was registered in 2017, and the matter was being decided in 2026 — a gap of nearly nine years. The court held that no useful purpose would be served by conducting a trial against the petitioner at this stage, and that compelling the petitioner to face the case would amount to an oppressive exercise.
Scope of the Order
The quashing operates against the petitioner alone. Crime No. 1926 of 2017 as a whole continues; the order does not affect the other accused in the case. The petitioner was the seventh accused, and the relief was confined strictly to his position in the FIR.
Order
The Criminal Original Petition was allowed. Crime No. 1926 of 2017 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai, stands quashed as against S. Kumaradevan alone. The connected miscellaneous petition, Crl.M.P. No. 17111 of 2018, was closed as a consequence.