Talk of separate Tamil Nadu today would be seen as mental health issue, not sedition: Madras High Court

Statements about making Tamil Nadu a separate nation will not amount to the offence of sedition in the present social context; rather the person making such a statement will be viewed as having mental health issues, the Madras High Court recently held [Keera Vs State].

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy said such a statement, if made today, would at best cause annoyance and would not be considered as exciting hatred against the government.

“If any person speaks about dividing Tamil Nadu into a separate nation, the person will certainly be referred to as having mental health issues and it will not excite any hatred at all among the common public,” the Court said.

The Court made the observation while quashing a sedition case against two publishers, Keera @ Moorthi and Thamil Bala.

The Court passed the order while allowing a plea filed by Keera @ Moorthi and Thamil Bala, who were accused in a case pending before the 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet.

The case concerned a book authored and compiled by one Elangovan and released in 2014 at RKV Preview Theatre, Chennai. The prosecution alleged that the book was published through Kalagam Pathipppagam, run by the petitioners.

According to the final report, the book recorded that in 1967, one Tamizharasan had proclaimed in Coimbatore that Tamil Nadu should become a separate nation. It was also alleged that the book referred to guerrilla warfare being adopted for secession.

The petitioners approached the High Court to quash the proceedings. The prime accused, Elangovan, had died during the pendency of the case.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that an identical issue had earlier been considered by a Division Bench of the High Court in relation to another book. In that case, the Court had considered the Supreme Court’s order in SG Vombatkere v Union of India and quashed proceedings under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners argued that the same yardstick should apply to the present case.

The State opposed the petition. It argued that if a book contained a statement that Tamil Nadu has to secede and become a separate nation, and that guerrilla warfare would be carried out for the same, it would certainly amount to sedition.

The High Court rejected the argument.

Justice Chakravarthy said that the essence of sedition is a written or visible representation that brings, or attempts to bring, hatred, contempt or disaffection against the government established by law.

The Court said that such allegations must be examined in the light of the current social milieu.

“It will be true that during the days of Tamizharasan in 1967, when he formed the Tamil liberation front, etc., such a speech or publication would have incited hatred or contempt to the Government of India. But in today’s scenario, India as a nation, is unified by heart and soul,” the Court stated.

Pertinently, the Court noted that the book did not contain a present-day call for secession. It only recorded what Tamizharasan had said decades ago.

“Mere recording of what had happened will not even amount to an attempt to incite hatred.”

The High Court, therefore, quashed the sedition case.

The petitioners were represented by advocate P Pugalenthi.

Government Advocate M Mohamed Riyaz appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]