The Madras High Court on Monday declined to grant anticipatory bail relief to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Gen-Z wing coordinator A. Anbanantham in a case related to an allegedly derogatory Instagram post targeting Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijayhis family and a film actor.
During the hearing, Justice C. Kumarappan observed that the social media post had gone beyond the limits of permissible political criticism and had “affected the conscience of society.” Following the court’s observations, Anbanantham withdrew his anticipatory bail petition.
The court remarked that the Instagram post was “not a harmless one” and said the petitioner appeared to believe he could make any statement on social media under the guise of freedom of speech.
“This post affects the conscience of the society. He has taken it as a carte blanche,” Justice Kumarappan observed during the hearing.
The judge further indicated that he was not inclined to grant relief even if the petitioner filed an affidavit apologising for the post and assuring the court that similar remarks would not be made in the future.
The case stems from a First Information Report (FIR) registered by Krishnagiri Police on June 23based on a complaint filed by M. Moorthya functionary of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).
According to the complaint, Anbanantham uploaded an objectionable video on Instagram containing allegedly disparaging remarks against Chief Minister Vijay while also referring to the latter’s wife, son and a film actor. The complainant submitted a pen drive containing the videos and sought legal action.
Police subsequently booked Anbanantham under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to criminal intimidation, intentional insult, provoking breach of peace and gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
Before approaching the High Court, Anbanantham had sought anticipatory bail before the Principal District and Sessions Court in Krishnagiriwhich rejected his plea on June 29. The prosecution argued that the accused had a pattern of seeking “cheap publicity” through objectionable content posted on social media.
While dismissing the earlier bail plea, the sessions court had observed that although freedom of speech is constitutionally protected, political criticism cannot be extended to personal attacks on an individual’s private life.
The investigation into the case is continuing.
Comments are closed.