The Madras High Court recently instructed the Greater Chennai City Police to conduct a diligent investigation into a controversial tweet posted by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) leader Aadhav Arjuna. The now-deleted tweet was deemed inflammatory, as it allegedly insinuated a youth-led revolt against the Tamil Nadu government, drawing parallels to past events in Sri Lanka and Nepal.
Justice N. Senthilkumar issued this directive while addressing a writ petition filed by S.M. Kathiravan of Anna Nagar, Chennai. The petitioner had initially sought a First Information Report (FIR) against Mr. Arjuna based on his complaint.
During the proceedings, State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah and Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran informed the court that an FIR had already been registered against Mr. Arjuna under various legal provisions concerning the tweet.
‘Even a small spark can lead to disaster’
However, Justice Senthilkumar questioned whether merely registering an FIR was sufficient given the gravity of the alleged offense. He sternly asked, “What action have you taken after that? Even a small spark can lead to a disaster. Can you allow anybody to speak anything? Is there no law and order? No action will be taken? Very unfortunate.”
The judge continued, challenging the perception of impunity: “Are people above the law? Do people think that nobody can do anything to them? Do you want the court to be a mute spectator to all these things?” He reiterated that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.
Anticipatory bail rejected
Earlier the same day, Justice Senthilkumar also rejected an anticipatory bail petition submitted by N. Sathish Kumar, TVK’s Namakkal district secretary. This case involved charges related to damage caused to a private hospital in Namakkal during a campaign by TVK leader C. Joseph Vijay on September 27.
The anticipatory bail was denied due to strong opposition from Government Advocate (criminal side) S. Santhosh, who argued that it was a serious instance of mob violence leading to property damage, and therefore, no leniency should be extended to the accused through advance bail.