Madras HC: Call for “separate Tamil Nadu” in today’s India is mere annoyance, not sedition

Chennai: The Madras High Court has held that calls for making Tamil Nadu a separate country do not amount to sedition in the present social context, observing that such remarks would more likely be treated as a sign of mental health issues than as a serious threat to the nation.

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, quashing a sedition case against two publishers, said that a statement advocating a separate Tamil Nadu “can at best cause annoyance” and, in today’s social milieu, cannot be regarded as inciting hatred against India or the Union government. The judge noted that the “mere publication” of such a sentence does not, by itself, attract the offence of sedition.

The case related to a book published in 2014 by Kalagam Pathippagam, run by the petitioners. The author, who was not one of the accused, died while the case was pending. The book recorded that in 1967, one Tamizharasan had proclaimed in Coimbatore that Tamil Nadu should become a separate nation and that guerrilla warfare should be adopted to “divide and secede”.

The publishers approached the High Court to quash the proceedings under Section 124 of the Indian Penal Code, arguing that a division bench had previously set aside sedition cases in a similar matter involving another book. The sedition case against them had been registered in 2019 and was pending before a magistrate court, even as the Supreme Court, in 2022, directed that prosecutions under Section 124 IPC be kept in abeyance.

Opposing the plea, the state contended that the book was seditious because it contained a statement favouring secession of Tamil Nadu and referring to guerrilla warfare to achieve it. The court disagreed, holding that the core of sedition lies in words or representations that bring the government into contempt or attempt to excite disaffection towards it.

Justice Chakravarthy pointed out that the Supreme Court has said such acts must be assessed in the context of the “current social milieu and the times in which we are living”. He observed that while, in 1967, when Tamizharasan formed the Tamil liberation front, a speech or publication of that nature might have incited hatred or contempt for the Indian government, the situation today is different. “In today’s scenario, India as a nation is unified by heart and soul,” the court remarked.

The judge further held that merely recording what had happened historically does not amount to an attempt to incite hatred or disaffection. On this basis, the High Court rejected the state’s argument and quashed the sedition proceedings against the publishers.