Madras HC Cautions Against Reckless Social Media Allegations Targeting New Ministers
Madras High Court warns reckless social media allegations against new Tamil Nadu ministers can hamper official duties; directs apology in false temple land post case.
The Madras High Court has cautioned that unfounded allegations levelled against newly inducted ministers in Tamil Nadu could create undue stress and hamper their ability to discharge official duties. The observation came from Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy while hearing a petition related to a social media post concerning Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Minister Ramesh.
The court was dealing with a case involving DMK sympathiser Vinoth Suriya Kumar, who had posted on X claiming that land belonging to the Palani Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple was registered in the name of a relative of Minister Ramesh. The court noted that the claim was admitted to be incorrect and made without verifying facts.
Justice Chakravarthy directed Kumar to file an affidavit expressing regret, explicitly stating that the message was posted without verification. The affidavit must also include an undertaking that the content creator will verify the existence and source of facts before sharing any content on social media handles in the future.
The court observed that attempts to register temple land in the names of private individuals had occurred before the 2026 Assembly elections, a time when Ramesh, who belongs to the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), was not in office. The judge noted that the post appeared to be politically motivated and contained defamatory imputations against the minister.
While the court acknowledged that political criticism generally falls within the ambit of freedom of speech, it clarified that this case involved prima facie false information. The judge stated that the minister is free to pursue appropriate civil and criminal defamation proceedings if he chooses to do so.
However, the court quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered against the content creator based on a complaint by the minister's personal assistant. The judge held that the legal provisions invoked by the cybercell police in Chennai were not applicable to the case. Sections 192 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita could only be invoked if the false information was spread with the intention of provoking riots or causing public alarm. The court concluded that the petitioner's intention was political, aimed at spreading false information against the minister, and therefore the FIR could not be sustained.