Statements For Separate Tamil Nadu Not Sedition in Current Milieu: Madras HC [Read Order]

Chennai: The Madras High Court has held that a statement advocating a separate Tamil Nadu nation does not amount to sedition in the present-day social context, observing that a person making such a statement today would be viewed as having mental health issues rather than as inciting hatred against the nation.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking to quash the final report against them. 

The prosecution's case was that the petitioners, who ran a publishing house named 'Kalagam Pathippagam', released a book titled 'Tamil Desiya Thalaivar Tamilarasanin Vazhvum Aramum', authored and compiled by Elangovan, at a public function held at RKV Preview Theatre, Chennai, on 12 October 2014. The book recorded that in 1967, one Tamizharasan had proclaimed in Coimbatore that Tamil Nadu should become a separate nation and that guerilla warfare should be adopted to divide and secede from India. The police treated this recorded statement as seditious material under Section 124-A of the IPC and filed a charge sheet, giving rise to PRC No.72 of 2019 before the Magistrate.

Mr. P. Pugalenthi, counsel for the petitioners, relied on a Division Bench ruling of the High Court concerning an identical book on Lenin and Tamil liberation, which had applied the Supreme Court's decision in S.G. Vombatkere versus Union of India to hold that the rigours of Section 124-A of the IPC were not in tune with the current social milieu, and had quashed the FIR on the ground that a mere statement would not justify a sedition charge. He submitted that the same yardstick ought to apply to the present case.

The Government Advocate appearing for the police argued to the contrary, submitting that a book containing a call to secede Tamil Nadu and wage guerilla warfare would certainly amount to sedition, justifying the charge sheet.

The Court held that the gravamen of the offence of sedition lies in bringing the government established by law into hatred or contempt, or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards it, through written or visible representation, and that such acts must be assessed in light of the current social milieu and the times in which the country is living.

While a call for secession and guerilla warfare made during Tamizharasan's time in 1967, when the Tamil liberation movement was active, might well have incited hatred against the government of that era, the Court held that India today is unified as a nation, by heart and soul, and that any person advocating the division of Tamil Nadu into a separate nation in the present day "will certainly be referred to as having mental health issues and it will not excite any hatred at all among the common public," at best causing annoyance. 

If any person speaks about dividing Tamilnadu 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. At best, it will cause annoyance and therefore, in the present social milieu, the mere publication of that sentence cannot be considered as inciting hatred against the nation or the Government of India.

The Court further observed that the book did not present the 1967 statement as a present-day call to action, but merely recorded a historical event associated with Tamizharasan, and held that mere recording of what had happened will not even amount to an attempt to incite hatred. It reasoned that the true test under Section 124-A of the IPC is not the content of a historical fact reproduced in a text, but whether its publication, assessed against the present social climate, is capable of inciting disaffection towards the government established by law.

Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the final report and all further proceedings in PRC No.72 of 2019 pending before the 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

Appearances: Mr. P. Pugalenthi appeared for the petitioners; Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appeared for Respondent No.1.

Case Title: Keera @ Moorthi & Anr. versus The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police & Anr. [CRL OP No.16226 of 2026]

[Read Order]