Chennai, July 2 (IANS) The Madras High Court on Thursday refused to interfere with criminal proceedings initiated against former Tamil Nadu Minister and senior DMK leader K. Ponmudy over his controversial remarks on Shaivites, Vaishnavites and women, holding that the private complaint against him could proceed before the trial court.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Ponmudy challenging an order of the III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai, which had taken cognisance of a private complaint filed by BJP Greater Chennai Corporation councillor Uma Anandan and issued summons to him earlier this year.
The complaint relates to a speech delivered by Ponmudy during an event in Chennai in April 2025 when he was serving as the State Forest Minister.
According to the complainant, the speech contained derogatory remarks about Shaivites, Vaishnavites and women and amounted to hate speech that hurt religious sentiments and promoted enmity between communities.
In her complaint, Uma Anandan stated that she came across a video of the speech on YouTube and found the remarks deeply offensive.
She alleged that Ponmudy had referred to an anecdote in which the pattai — the horizontal sacred mark worn by Saivites — and the tiruman — the vertical forehead mark worn by Vaishnavites — were compared with “descriptions of sexual postures by a sex worker”.
She contended that such remarks insulted the religious beliefs of both sects and disturbed communal harmony.
The BJP councillor said she had initially approached the police seeking criminal action. However, after the complaint was closed without further action, she filed a private complaint before the Magistrate’s court, which took cognisance of the matter and, on February 23, 2026, ordered issuance of summons to Ponmudy.
Challenging the order before the High Court, Ponmudy argued that he had merely recalled comments made by another person years earlier during what he described as a closed-door meeting and that the remarks did not originate from him.
His counsel further contended that the complaint failed to disclose offences under Sections 196(1)(a), 299 and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, relating to promoting enmity between groups and deliberately wounding religious feelings.
Rejecting those submissions, the High Court declined to quash the proceedings, allowing the criminal case before the Magistrate’s Court to continue.
–IANS
aal/dpb