Madras High Court quashes case against Annamalai over his remarks on Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

We The Leaders founder K. Annamalai. File | Photo Credit: S. Siva Saravanan

The Madras High Court on Thursday (September 24, 2026) quashed a private complaint lodged by Salem-based activist Piyush Manush against We The Leaders founder K. Annamalai for reportedly claiming, during a 2023 press meet, that Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar, in 1956, warned of performing ‘blood abhishekam’ for Madurai Meenakshi Amman “if atheists continued to insult theists.”

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan allowed a petition to quash the complaint after being convinced with the arguments advanced by advocate Arun C. Mohan for the former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, who had quit the party recently to start his own movement. The judge quashed all proceedings that were pending against the petitioner before a judicial magistrate’s court in Salem.

After the lodging of the complaint, the Tamil Nadu government had on April 28, 2024, accorded sanction, required under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for prosecuting Mr. Annamalai under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate had taken cognisance of the offences and ordered the issuance of summons in February 2026, leading to the present quash plea.

However, Mr. Mohan told the court that Mr. Annamalai had merely responded to certain comments made by DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin against Sanatana Dharma. “I, as any other politician in the country, had an opinion on the subject. In the course of stating my opinion on the subject... I had referred to a historically recorded incident involving Muthuramalinga Thevar and former Chief Minister C.N. Annadurai,” he said.

The counsel also argued there were several variations of the particular historical incident but the sum and substance of it was that Annadurai had addressed a temple event and that Muthuramalinga Thevar had disagreed with his speech. He said the complainant appears to be contending that Mr. Annamalai ought not to have referred to that incident even if it had been true.

Justice Ilanthiraiyan was also told that the Magistrate had taken cognisance of the private complaint without conducting a preliminary inquiry or affording an opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. He argued that the complainant had failed to identify two discernible communities, between whom the present petitioner had attempted to create a divide by referring to a historical incident.

In his complaint, Mr. Manush had accused Mr. Annamalai of having committed offences under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.) and 505(1)(c) (making statements with intent to incite any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community) of the Indian Penal Code.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.