Did the Madurai Adheenam's Statements Suggest an Assassination Attempt?

Chennai, Aug 5 (NationPress) In a strong critique of the sensational statements made by the Madurai Adheenam, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madras High Court questioned whether the citizens of Tamil Nadu were so easily swayed by unwarranted and provocative remarks.

These comments arose during the hearing of a petition submitted by ascetic Harihara Gnanasambanda Desigar, requesting the cancellation of a First Information Report (FIR) filed against him by the cyber crime division of the Greater Chennai City Police.

The FIR was initiated following a complaint from advocate R. Rajendiran.

The Adheenam claimed that a minor traffic incident involving his vehicle on May 2 while traveling from Madurai to Chennai was an assassination attempt, suggesting that the alleged attackers were wearing skull caps, had beards, and might be affiliated with Pakistan.

Justice Chakravarthy expressed his disapproval of such statements.

“Just because the occupants of the other vehicle were Muslims, the petitioner seems to have heightened the situation. Are they not your brethren? Are they not equally Indian as you are?” he posed to the Adheenam's attorney, Ramaswamy Meyyappan.

The judge was addressing Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), R. Muniyapparaj, who contested the quashing of the FIR.

The APP argued that the Adheenam's remarks had incited protests throughout Tamil Nadu and constituted serious offences.

The FIR, filed on June 24, included multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), such as Sections 192 (provocation to incite rioting), 196(1)(a) (fostering enmity between religious groups), 353(1)(b) (statements leading to public mischief), and 353(2) (making false declarations to incite communal hostility).

During proceedings, the court reviewed CCTV footage of the incident, which led the judge to conclude that the Adheenam's vehicle had been driven recklessly.

Justice Chakravarthy noted that a significant accident was averted due to the quick thinking of the other driver, who applied the brakes effectively.

In response to the court's inquiries, the Adheenam's attorney claimed that the ascetic was influenced by media representatives at a private gathering and had not specified any particular religion.

He also mentioned that the FIR was filed nearly two months after the alleged comments.

While the APP maintained that several private complaints had been lodged against the Adheenam, the judge raised concerns about police resources being misallocated for such cases, suggesting they could be better employed in investigating serious crimes.

The court granted the police until August 14 to submit a counter affidavit regarding the FIR quash petition.