The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court recently quashed an FIR against a law student who made a Facebook post calling for breaking a statue of Dravidianist icon EVR Periyar near the Srirangam Temple in Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu. Allowing the plea filed by the student seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, Justice R Vijayakumar said that no offence was made out.
The High Court noted that the post was a mere expression of the petitioner’s opinion and that it did not result in any untoward incident. “As per the Facebook post of the petitioner, the petitioner has only expressed his views that such the said statue would affect the religious sentiments of Hindus. No untoward incidents have happened, pursuant to the said Facebook post. The petitioner was studying law in Bangalore at the time of the post. Now he has completed his studies, and he is about to get enrolled. It is only an expression of opinion and cannot be considered to have promoted enmity between the two groups,” the High Court said.
A case was registered against the petitioner, M Barani Dharan, at Srirangam Police Station for allegedly promoting enmity, intentional insult, and public mischief. The prosecution had alleged that Dharan made a Facebook post saying that the Periyar statue near the Srirangam temple should be destroyed and removed. The prosecution claimed that the post hurt the religious sentiments of people.
The petitioner submitted before the court that the criminal proceeding against him would adversely affect his legal career. He had completed his law degree and was planning to enrol as an advocate. The High Court examined the contents of the post and said that it was a mere expression of his opinion and did not meet the threshold for offences relating to enmity. The court noted that the post did not incite any incident of disturbance of law and order.
On the direction of the High Court, the petitioner had filed an affidavit in which he admitted that the social media post was a mistake. He also promised not to repeat the act. “Considering the above said circumstances and the affidavit filed by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution as against the petitioner,” the High Court said, allowing the petition.
