Madras High Court reserves orders on Annamalai’s plea to quash case over remarks on Muthuramalinga Thevar

The Madras High Court on Monday (August 31, 2026) reserved its orders on We The Leaders founder K. Annamalai’s plea to quash a criminal case pending against him 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 deferred his judgment on the quash plea after hearing the arguments advanced by advocate Arun C. Mohan for the former BJP Tamil Nadu unit president and counsel V. Suresh for the complainant Piyush Manush of Salem. The activist had lodged a private complaint against Mr. Annamalai before a judicial magistrate court in Salem in November 2023.

Thereafter, the State government, 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.

Mr. Mohan told the court that Mr. Annamalai had merely responded to certain comments made by DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin with respect to 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. Annadurai,” he said.

The counsel went on to state that 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 that the complainant appears to be contending that Mr. Annamalai ought not to have referred to that incident even if it had been true.

He said 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.

On the other hand, Mr. Suresh countered the submissions by relying upon several precedents and contended that the Magistrate had rightly taken cognisance of the provocative statement made with the intent to create a communal divide among people. The court was told that Mr. Annamalai was in the habit of making such speeches during his stint as former president of BJP’s Tamil Nadu unit.

The counsel argued that the petitioner had clearly 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 and hence, the present quash petition must be dismissed.