Justice G. Jayachandran wrote: “It is the member of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam who has given the complaint. In fact, the display of provocative words, commenting about believers of God opposite to a Hindu temple, is the cause for the speech and the person who had provoked the speech cannot take advantage of their provocations and prosecute the petitioner for his reaction.”The judge allowed the quash petition moved by Mr. Kannan and set aside the entire prosecution pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate court at Egmore in Chennai.
ADVERTISEMENTTAMIL NADU2 Mins ReadStatements against theists on pedestal of Periyar’s statue are provocative, says Madras HCPublished / Updated- October 03, 2024 11:23 ISTMOHAMED IMRANULLAH S.File photo of the bronze statue of Periyar E.V. Ramasamy installed in front of the rajagopuram of the Sri Ranganathasamy Temple at Srirangam in Tiruchi | Photo Credit: M. Moorthy Listen to articleJustice G. Jayachandran quashes case booked against stunt choreographer ‘Kanal’ Kannan for having called for the demolition of the statueThe Madras High Court on Thursday (October 2, 2024) quashed a charge sheet filed by the Chennai Central Crime Branch police against film action choreographer ‘Kanal’ Kannan alias V. Kannan, 61, in a case booked for allegedly demanding the demolition of a statue of rationalist and Dravidian ideologue ‘Thanthai’ Periyar, located outside the Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple at Srirangam in Tiruchi district of Tamil Nadu.Justice G. Jayachandran wrote: “It is the member of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam who has given the complaint. In fact, the display of provocative words, commenting about believers of God opposite to a Hindu temple, is the cause for the speech and the person who had provoked the speech cannot take advantage of their provocations and prosecute the petitioner for his reaction.”The judge allowed the quash petition moved by Mr. Kannan and set aside the entire prosecution pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate court at Egmore in Chennai. The case was booked in 2022 and the petitioner was arrested immediately. Then, Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan granted him bail on the condition that the stunt master must file an affidavit undertaking not to make such provocative speeches in the future.However, in his bail petition, the stunt master had argued there was nothing wrong with demanding the removal of the statute of the rationalist, located right outside a temple visited by lakhs of worshippers every day, along with “disparaging comments” about theists. He contended the police had arrested him instead of arresting those who had erected the statue in front of the temple.ADVERTISEMENTStating he was an office-bearer of the Hindu Munnani, Mr. Kannan said the speech was made at a public meet organised by the latter. While addressing the participants, he had said that Periyar’s statue outside the Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple should be demolished because it contained statements that all those who believe in God and offer worship were “fools and barbarians”.“Sri Ranganathaswamy temple is a holy one where at least one lakh Hindus worship every day… The petitioner submits that he does not believe what he said was against any law of the country. On the other hand, the existence of the statue with those words is certainly an offence punishable under Sections 153 (promoting enmity between different groups), 505(1)(b) (disturbing public tranquillity) and 505(2) (promoting enmity between classes) of the Indian Penal Code,” he said.The petitioner had further claimed that in recent days, many videos were being circulated on social media demeaning Hindu gods and the faith of the Hindus, but the police had not chosen to register cases against those individuals.ADVERTISEMENTRelated TopicsRecommendedHeadlinesNEWS6h agoSHILPA ELIZABETHHINDI6h agoHINDI6h agoNEWS7h agoMAITRI PORECHAENTERTAINMENT7h agoPRAVEEN SUDEVANCHILDREN7h agoVIDYA NESARIKARNEWS7h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUCHILDREN7h agoBHAVYA VENKATESHCHILDREN8h agoROHINI RAMAKRISHNANCHILDREN8h agoSHARMILA P.ENTERTAINMENT8h agoENTERTAINMENT8h agoBOB JONESNEWS8h agoYEMEN S.NEWS8h agoYEMEN S.SOCIETY8h agoBERTY ASHLEYNEWS8h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWS9h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUBOOKS9h agoZIYA US SALAMNEWS9h agoRANGARAJAN R.NEWS9h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWS9h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWS9h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWS9h agoNELLORE SRAVANINEWS9h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWS9h agoNELLORE SRAVANINEWS9h agoSAMBASIVA RAO M.NEWS9h agoLAVPREET KAURNEWS9h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUDATA9h agoSAMBAVI PARTHASARATHY & NITIKA FRANCIS & VIGNESH RADHAKRISHNANNEWS9h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWS9h agoMAYANK KUMARNEWS9h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUBUSINESS11h agoSATYASUNDAR BARIKSCI-TECH12h agoQUDSIA GANISOCIETYOct 02,2024Explore more from
The HinduSearch for topics, people, articles…IndiaWorldMoviesTechnologye-PaperScienceDataHealthOpinionNewsBusinessEntertainmentLife & StyleShow More
![INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATMADRAS (SPECIALORIGINALJURISDICTION) W.M.P.No.11662OF2022 IN W.P.No.12210OF2022 G.Gouthaman. W.P.No.12210 of 2022 R.MAHADEVAN, J and S.ANANTHI , J [Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J] Mr.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. Ms.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the third respondent.](https://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)