Read Time: 06 minutes

Madras High Court on Friday refused to take down criminal proceedings under section 153A (promoting enmity), 295A (outraging religious feeling) and 505(2) of Indian Penal Code against catholic priest Geroge Ponniah in the derogatory Kanyakumari speech case. 

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan stated, "He cannot insult or outrage others' religion or their religious beliefs and still claim immunity from the application of Section 295A/153A/505(2) of IPC."

He opined that Evangelical Christian Priests having command over a large part of the population, if they speak ill of Hindu religion will attract charges under section 295A of IPC, they cannot take shelter of fundamental right of freedom of speech.

Court said, "An evangelist like the petitioner cannot claim a similar privilege......This is because he views the other religionists as a constituency to be poached. He cannot be called a disinterested or neutral commentator."

Court further added, "The targeted religionists are bound to take offence as they fear potential harm to their interests and well-being. In such an ambience, the Newton's third law, “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”, may start operating."

Significantly, Court also differentiated Munawar Faruqui or Alexander Babu's case from Ponniah's. Court said, 

"When stand-up comedians Munawar Faruqui or Alexander Babu perform on stage, they are exercising their fundamental right to poke fun at others. Again, their religious identity is irrelevant. It is here, the “Who?” and “Where?” tests matter. Section 295A of IPC cannot be invoked in such cases because the element of malice is wholly absent. The persons concerned voice their opinions or give vent to their expressions in their capacity as satirists."

Therefore, emphasizing the need for State's vigilance in matters like Ponniah's, the court stated, "The State cannot remain a mute spectator in such situations.To uphold the sanctity of the Constitution and maintain public order, the strong arm of law will have to come down heavily on those who seek to disrupt communal peace and amity. "

Stating thus, Court refused to give immunity to Ponniah from application of said sections. However, court opined that offences under Section 143, 269 and 506(1) of IPC and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 were not made out against Ponniah.

Backdrop of the matter

On 18th July, 2021, in a meeting organized at Arumanai, a village in western Kanyakumari District Ponniah had allegedly given a speech outraging sentiments of Hindus. He had even painted Bharat Mata & Bhuma Devi as filthy & causes of infection.

The speech went viral and provoked considerable public outcry. In the aftermath, a case was registered against Ponniah for the offences under Sections 143, 153A, 295A, 505(2), 506(1) and 269 of IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. To quash the FIR, the present petition had been filed.

Case Title: Fr.P.George Ponnaiah v. The Inspector of Police,Arumanai Police Station, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari and Ors.