Tamil Nadu people are not naive to get provoked by Madurai Adheenam’s ‘unnecessary’ comments: Madras High Court

Are the people of Tamil Nadu so naive to get provoked by “unnecessary” remarks made by Madurai Adheenam who had termed a minor road accident as an alleged assassination attempt against him, suspected involvement of Pakistan and claimed that the alleged assassins were wearing skull caps and sporting beards? asked Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madras High Court on Tuesday (August 5, 2025).

The judge posed the question when Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) R. Muniyapparaj vehemently opposed a petition filed by by the ascetic Harihara Gnanasambanda Desigar to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him by the cyber crime wing of the Greater Chennai City Police on the basis of a complaint lodged by R. Rajendiran, an advocate.

The FIR was registered on June 24 under Sections 192 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause rioting), 196(1)(a) (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 353(1)(b) (statements conducing to public mischief) and 353(2) (making false statements to create communal enmity) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

After watching the CCTV footage of the road accident played by the APP on a tablet, the judge was convinced that it was the Adheenam’s car which had been driven rashly when he travelled from Madurai to Chennai on May 2. He said, a major accident had been averted because of the sagacity of the other car driver who had pulled the brakes at the right moment.

“Merely because the occupants of the other car were Muslims, the petitioner appears to have escalated the issue. Are they not your brethren? Are they also not as much Indian as you are?” the judge asked the Adheenam’s counsel Ramaswamy Meyyappan who replied that the ascetic was forced to speak only by the mediapersons at a private event in Chennai.

The counsel also stated the petitioner had nowhere named any religion and the FIR itself had been registered nearly two months after the remarks were allegedly made. On the other hand, the APP claimed multiple protests were held across Tamil Nadu against the Adheenam’s remarks and that cognisable offences had been clearly made out warranting registration of a FIR.

The APP also stated many private complaints too had been filed against the Adheenam for his remarks. However, the judge felt the resources of the police department could be utilised better for probing serious criminal cases than cases of the present nature. He, later, granted time till August 14 for the police to file its counter affidavit to the FIR quash petition.