Kodanadu Estate case: Madras HC stays criminal proceedings against Mathew Samuel for uploading video accusing TN CM of murder

The Madras High Court today stayed the criminal proceedings pending against Narada News Editor, Mathew Samuel for having uploaded a video interview in which Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu E Palaniswami is alleged to have played a role in the Kodanadu Estate break-in and murder case..An FIR had been registered against Samuel by an AIADMK officer bearer under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and Section 505 (public mischief), among others for uploading the said video. Last week, Samuel moved a petition in the Madras High Court to quash this FIR..After hearing arguments made on behalf of Samuel as well as the state, Justice N Anand Venkatesh reserved orders in the matter last Friday, opining that he needed time to apply his mind in the matter, especially on the scope and application of Section 153A IPC..Appearing on behalf of Samuel, Senior Advocate NR Elango had argued that Section 153A IPC could not be invoked against Samuel since this provision would come into play only if there are aspersions made to cause enmity or disharmony between different communities..Defending the state, Public Prosecutor A Natarajan had argued that the video had led to disharmony among different political groups. He also pointed towards the demands made for the resignation of Chief Minister Palaniswami by the opposition party to argue that the video had caused public unrest..While hearing arguments on Friday, Justice Venkatesh had also orally pondered whether such a charge would lie if corruption accusations are made against a judge in his individual capacity. He queried whether the fact that such allegations may cause unrest amongst the advocate community could invite a charge under Section 153A of the IPC..In the order passed today, Justice Venkatesh again made note that there was a need to clarify whether or not Section 153A of the IPC can be invoked in cases that do not involve two or more distinct religious, linguistic or other communities, but rather only involve state authorities or have political overtones. As noted in his order,.“This case raises a very important issue as to whether any words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise, made against an individual person, whatever position he is holding and which does not result in promoting feelings of enmity or hatred between different groups on grounds of religion, race, language, etc., will come within the purview of Section 153 A of IPC. .This position must be clarified since it is noticed that in many cases which involves governmental authorities, particularly having political overtones and which at the best only affects the interest/reputation of the individuals concerned, and does not in fact cause any disharmony or promotes any hatred between religion, race, community etc., FIR is being registered for an offence u/S 153 A and 505 IPC.“.Following an extensive discussion on the origin and application of Sections 153A and 505 of the IPC, the Court eventually concluded,.“The common feature in Section 153 A and Section 505, being promotion of felling of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or cause and communities, it is necessary that at least two such groups or communities should be involved.“.In view of this observations, the Court ordered a stay on the criminal proceedings against Samuel and adjourned the matter for four weeks..“Taking into consideration the scope of Sec 153-A …and also the provisions of Sec 505 IPC, which has similar ingredients, this Court grants stay of all further investigation in Cr.No.21 of 2019, on the file of the first respondent Police for a period of four weeks.”.The Court has also issued notice in the matter..On a related note, the Rs 1.1 crore defamation case initiated by CM Palaniswami against Samuel, four other Narada journalists and two accused in the Kodanadu case for uploading the said video is due to come up in the High Court tomorrow. Last Wednesday, Justice K Kalyanasundaram had passed an interim order injuncting the publication of the video after the matter was mentioned urgently.