Dhinkaran and 16 of his supporters, including the petitioner, the party's Karnataka unit secretary V Pugazhenthi, were charged with issuing pamphlets opposing the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test in which they have allegedly defamed Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Minister K Palaniswami.
They have been booked for sedition, unlawful assembly and defamation among other offences in the FIR registered on September 29 at Annadanapatty police station in Salem district.
"The pamphlets/complaints read, in any meaning, has attempted to excite the disaffection towards the central and state governments and has also attempted to bring the hatred and contempt against them."
Citing a Supreme Court order, Advocate General Vijay Narayan submitted that there was an interim direction to the chief secretary to ensure that there is no disruption to normal life of the state citizens and in case of any violation, the government was directed to book violators under the appropriate law.
Moreover, the AG submitted that all offences including sedition and defamation have been clearly made out against the petitioner and others and since the issue is under investigation, he sought dismissal of the criminal original petition.
N G R Prasad, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that it was the fundamental right of every citizen to peacefully protest and demonstrate any action and "therefore in the absence of any violation, demonstration or protest, the offences cannot, by no stretch of imagination, be said to have been committed".
The pamphlets relate to birth centenary celebrations of AIADMK party leaders and the action said to have been initiated based on the apex court order is not sustainable, he said.
The judge, who dismissed the plea, in his order said "In the instant case, the pamphlet/complaint intends to harm the reputation of both Central as well as state governments."
The apex court in the Raghuvur Singh versus the state has held that distribution and circulation of seditious materials is sufficient to attract the provisions of Sec 124-A.
"The final sentences in the pamphlets/complaints calling upon the general public to demonstrate and agitate against the state government and central government on the issue of NEET examination are one among other slogans."
Since the pamphlets attempt to incite the public to protest and demonstrate, police were well within the powers to register the complaint in accordance with the directions of the supreme court, the judge said.
"Now, that this court has found that the complaint discloses the possible commission of the offences, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the investigation," the judge said, dismissing the plea.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
