Veeran@Viduthalaiveeran v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN W.P.(MD)No.14368 of 2019 (Through video Conference) Veeran @ Viduthalaiveeran .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Madurai District.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.
3.Director Pa.Ranjith 4.Ambi Venkatesan .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate action against the fourth respondent who abused the Arunthathiyar community with caste abusive words and for his provocative and inflammatory speech against communal harmony, in the pretext of condemning the Film Director Ranjith/3rd respondent and file a status report.
For Petitioner :
No Appearance For R1 and R2 : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
Today, there was no representation for the petitioner. 2.This writ petition is filed by one Veeran @ Viduthalaiveeran claiming himself as a social activist on the part of Aathi Thamizhar Katchi and he belongs to Arunthathiyar Community. Page Nos.1/3
3.In this writ petition, he seeks mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate action against the fourth respondent who has abused Arunthathiyar Community while condemning the third respondent for his comment on King Rajarajacholan. The alleged defamatory statement is in response to a statement of Ranjith/third respondent commenting upon King Rajarajacholan. 4.This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the comment of Ranjith against King Rajarajacholan was subjected to criminal prosecution. However, the High Court has quashed the criminal prosecution on the ground that the historical interpretation of a person has to be met by counter interpretation and not by prosecution. The said comment of Ranjith has not only invoked criminal prosecution but adverse comment from the equally sensitive persons.
One such comment is now made by the fourth respondent. If at all the person, who is aggrieved about the comment, it must be Ranjith, to whom the comment is addressed and not the petitioner herein who seeks action. The petitioner herein is the third party and there is some reference about the community, the petitioner cannot maintain the criminal complaint for defamation under Sections 153 and 153A of IPC.
5.For the said reasons, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (As) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) sji Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.
To 1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Madurai District.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.
Page Nos.2/3
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
W.P.(MD)No.14368 of 2019 21.01.2022 MGJ(09.02.2022) 3P 4C Page Nos.3/3