Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Amit Malviya Over Udhayanidhi Stalin’s ‘Eradicate Sanathana’ Remark

(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

Madras,21, January, 2026-In a significant judicial intervention concerning the boundaries of political discourse and the interpretation of controversial rhetoric, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered against BJP IT Cell head Amit Malviya.

“If a group of people following Sanathana Dharma should not be there, then the appropriate word is “genocide”. If Sanathana Dharma is a religion then it is “Religicide”. It also means to eradicate the people by following any methods or various methods with diverse attacks on ecocide, factocide, culturicide (cultural genocide). Therefore, the Tamil phrase “Sanathana Ozhippu” would clearly mean genocide or culturicide” The Court Said.

Presiding over the matter, Justice S. Srimathy delivered a verdict that emphasizes the right to critique and interpret the underlying implications of public speeches made by high-ranking constitutional authorities.

The Genesis of the Legal Dispute

The controversy dates back to September 2, 2023, when Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin addressed the “Sanatana Abolition Conference.” In a speech that triggered a nationwide debate, Stalin drew a provocative analogy:

“Sanatana Dharma should not merely be resisted but must be eradicated, much like diseases such as Dengue, Malaria, and COVID-19.”

Following this, Amit Malviya posted a video of the speech on the social media platform X, questioning if the statement amounted to a call for the “genocide of 80% of the population of Bharat” who follow Sanatana Dharma. This prompted an FIR by the Trichy South DMK Advocate Wing under Sections 153, 153A, and 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging the promotion of enmity between groups.

“If Sanathana Dharma should not be there, then the people following Sanathana Dharma should not be there.  The Court said

The Judicial Reasoning

In her elaborate order quashing the FIR, Justice Srimathy observed that the petitioner (Malviya) had neither incited violence nor called for an agitation. The court’s findings can be summarized through three critical judicial lenses:

1. The Nature of the Interpretation

The Court noted that Malviya had merely “interpreted a hidden meaning” of the Minister’s speech. Since the Minister used the terminology of “eradication” in the context of a faith followed by a vast majority, the Court held that questioning whether such language implies genocidal intent is a matter of interpretation rather than a criminal act of spreading misinformation.

“The petitioner has not asked any people to start any agitation either against the minister or his party, but has put forth mere facts and questioned the minister. The petitioner post is in a form of question and seeking reply for the minister and the same would not attract the ingredients of any sections.” Justice Srimathy recorded.

2. Absence of Incitement

The Bench highlighted that the materials placed before it did not suggest that Malviya asked the public to take up arms or start an agitation against the Minister or his party. Instead, the Court found that the petitioner had “only put forward the facts and questions” based on the Minister’s own public utterances.

3. Context of “Sanatana Dharma” Critique

Justice Srimathy pointed out that the political party to which the Deputy CM belongs has a documented history of making repeated statements against Sanatana Dharma. The Court held that:

• The overall circumstances leading to the speech must be considered.
• When a Minister equates a faith to a “deadly disease,” the implications of such a metaphor are naturally subject to intense public and legal scrutiny.

The Legal Precedent

By quashing the FIR, the High Court has reinforced the principle that political critique, even when sharp or hyperbolic, does not automatically constitute a criminal offense under Section 153A (promoting enmity). The ruling suggests that those in power must expect their metaphors to be analysed for their logical extremes by the opposition and the public.