Journo moves Madras high court to quash case against him
In his petition, the journalist also sought to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the registration of the FIR.
Chennai: Mathew Samuel, a Delhi-based journalist, who alleged the involvement of Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami in the 2017 Kodanadu Estate heist and murder case, has approached the Madras high court, to quash the FIR registered against him.
In his petition, the journalist also sought to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the registration of the FIR.
When the petition came up for hearing before Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, senior counsel N.R.Elango, appearing for the petitioner submitted that based on a complaint from the secretary of IT wing of the AIADMK, the police registered an FIR against the petitioner and six others on January 11, 2019 for allegedly committing offences under sections 153A, 501 (1) (b), 505 (1) (c) and 505 (2) read with section 120 (b) of IPC. K. V. Sayan and K.C.Mano named in the FIR were arrested the police on January 14 in New Delhi. When they were produced for remand, the Magistrate in Egmore refused to remand them holding that there was no sufficient materials to justify the remand, he added.
Elango submitted that neither the press conference held by the petitioner nor the documentary published by him makes any statement 'on grounds if religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community'. The documentary relates to only one person and that no person in the documentary makes any statement regarding any group, much less any statement or act promoting enmity or disharmony amongst two different communities. Therefore, the offences were not attracted, he added.
State public prosecutor A.Natarajan submitted that if the law was set in motion, that was enough. Section 153A squarely applies in this case as the documentary statement was promoting enmity.
The Chief Minister was not an individual. He has several lakhs of followers. If they view the video which contains false information, there will be restless. Under the guise of freedom of speech, the petitioner cannot make such an irresponsible statement. By seeing the video, there will be sustained provocation.
The enmity in mind will develop and it may come out and exhibited at any point of time. The petitioner cannot make false information which affects public harmony, he added.
SPP Natarajan submitted that opposition parties, particularly one political party conducted an agitation seeking action against CM and during the agitation they stopped the movement of the general public. After the accused came out on bail in Kodanadu estate case, there 22 hearings held. All along they kept and after two years suddenly they were making false statement, he added.
After hearing both sides, the judge reserved orders on the question of deciding admissibility of the petition.