As the social media post against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay crossed the bounds of permissible political criticism and “affected the conscience of the community”, the Madras High Court on Monday said it was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) ‘Generation Z’ wing coordinator A Anbanantham in a case related to an alleged insulting Instagram post targeting Vijay, his family and a film actor.
Following the court’s remarks, Anpanantham withdrew his anticipatory bail application for hearing before a single judge, Justice C Kumarappan.
During the hearing, Justice Kumarappan observed that the Instagram post “was not an innocuous post and the petitioner apparently believes that he can say anything on social media under the guise of freedom of expression.”
“This circular affects the conscience of the community. He (the petitioner) has taken it as carte blanche,” Jost Kumarappan said.
The judge added that he was not inclined to grant relief to Anpanantham even if he were to file an affidavit apologizing for the post and pledging not to make such statements in future.
A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Anpanantham by police in Krishnagiri district on June 23 following a complaint filed by an employee of Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK).
According to the complaint, Anbanantham uploaded an objectionable video on Instagram containing derogatory remarks against the chief minister while also referring to the latter’s wife, son and a film actor.
The complainant, M. Murthy, drives a drive containing the videos to the police and seeks action.
The police then booked Anpanantham for the offenses of criminal intimidation, uttering words, gesture or act intended to insult a woman’s modesty, intentional insult, and intent to provoke under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act.
Read also:‘He’s a Muslim. That’s it: How a 75-year-old umpire overturned Tamil Nadu’s order on 1 billion cubic meter quota
Before moving the High Court, Anpanantham sought anticipatory bail from the Principal District Court and Sessions Court in Krishnagiri. But the court rejected his petition on June 29 after prosecutors said he was in the habit of getting “cheap publicity” by circulating vulgar content through his social media accounts.
In denying the petition, the court at the time noted that while a government cannot suppress an individual’s right to freedom of expression, political criticism cannot extend to personal attacks on an individual’s private life.
“This court recognizes the fact that the government cannot act in a way that suppresses an individual’s freedom of expression. At the same time, while any individual has the power to question the government about its actions, he or she does not have the power to question someone about his or her own actions. Criticizing someone personally about their private life does not rise to the level of criticizing the government,” the sitting court said.
