Chennai. DMK woman councilor D. Sudha has been granted anticipatory bail by the Madras High Court in the case of allegedly making derogatory remarks against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and actor-turned-politician C. Joseph Vijay. The court clearly said that people holding public office should be prepared to face criticism, sarcasm and even derogatory comments. Arrest cannot be justified merely on the basis of political speech or harsh remarks unless there is a imminent and real danger of inciting violence or disturbing public order.
Controversial remarks were made in the party meeting
According to the case, DMK councilor of ward number 95 D. Sudha had addressed the party program organized at Raja Annamalai Mandapam in Chennai on October 7. It is alleged that during this time he used derogatory words like 'dog' and 'corpse' for Chief Minister Vijay. His speech was also circulated on social media.
About 12 days later, on October 19, an official of Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) lodged a police complaint. On the basis of this, a case was registered against Sudha under various sections of the Indian Justice Code. After the notice was issued by the police, Sudha had approached the High Court for relief from arrest.
The court said freedom of expression is important
Justice N. Ramesh said in the 16-page order that sharp, unfair and harsh criticism in political speech also falls within the ambit of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court also said that the post of the Chief Minister is not so weak that his dignity gets affected by the sharp remarks of a councilor.
According to the court, the impugned speech was not against any community or class, but was addressed to a political opponent. There was no mention of inciting anyone to violence or any other action in the speech. In such a situation, dispute on social media or fear of possible altercation among supporters cannot be considered as sufficient basis for arrest.
Separate legal process for defamation
The High Court said that there is a separate procedure in law in case of alleged insult or defamation of a person holding public office like the Chief Minister. The court raised the question as to why the defamation dispute was registered as a case of disturbing public peace.
Justice Ramesh also stressed on the impartiality of the police. He said that the responsibility of the police is towards the permanent state and not towards any political party in power. Equal treatment of the police in the cases of the ruling party and the opposition is part of its constitutional responsibility.
Refusal to ban speaking even after apology
Sudha filed an affidavit in the court and expressed regret to the Chief Minister and asked to exercise restraint while making public statements in future. However, a request was made by the state government to impose a condition preventing him from speaking against the Chief Minister.
The court refused to impose such a restriction. Justice Ramesh said that imposing blanket restrictions on the expression of a politician in lieu of bail would be contrary to the spirit of Article 19 of the Constitution.
Anticipatory bail granted on a bond of Rs 25 thousand
The High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Sudha on the condition of a bond of Rs 25,000 and two sureties. They will have to appear before the concerned magistrate within 15 days of the preparation of the copy of the order. Apart from this, instructions have been given to appear before the police every day at 10:30 am till further notice.
The court clarified that protecting freedom of expression does not mean endorsing controversial language. The court order underlines the constitutional balance between political criticism and accountability of those holding public office.