Madras High Court quashes complaint against Annamalai over Thevar remarks

The Madras High Court on Thursday quashed a private complaint filed against K. Annamalai, founder of We The Leaders, over remarks he made at a press meet in 2023 concerning Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan allowed the petition after hearing arguments from advocate Arun C. Mohan, who appeared for the former Bharatiya Janata Party leader. Annamalai recently left the party to launch his own movement. The court set aside all proceedings that were pending against him before a judicial magistrate's court in Salem.

The complaint had been lodged by Piyush Manush, a Salem-based activist, who alleged that Annamalai claimed Thevar warned in 1956 of performing a 'blood abhishekam' for Madurai Meenakshi Amman if atheists continued to insult theists. The complainant accused Annamalai of offences under Sections 153A and 505(1)(c) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Tamil Nadu government granted sanction on April 28, 2024, as required under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to prosecute Annamalai. The magistrate took cognisance of the offences and ordered summons in February 2026, prompting the quash petition.

Counsel for Annamalai submitted that his client had only responded to comments made by DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin against Sanatana Dharma. Annamalai stated that, like any other politician, he had an opinion on the subject and had referred to a historically recorded incident involving Muthuramalinga Thevar and former Chief Minister C.N. Annadurai.

The counsel argued that while several versions of the historical incident exist, the essence was that Annadurai had addressed a temple event and Muthuramalinga Thevar had disagreed with his speech. He contended that the complainant appeared to suggest Annamalai should not have referred to the incident even if it were true.

It was also submitted that the magistrate had taken cognisance of the private complaint without a preliminary inquiry or an opportunity of hearing for the petitioner. The counsel further argued that the complainant had failed to identify two discernible communities between whom Annamalai allegedly attempted to create a divide by citing the historical episode.