Facts leading to the Case
Earlier this year, Madras High court had dismissed the petition filed against Actor Rajnikanth for his speech in which he stated:
“In 1971, at Salem, Periyar took out a rally in which undressed photographs of Lord Sri Ramachandramoorthy and Sita -with a garland of sandal-featured and no information outlet published it. Cho strongly condemned the occasion with the aid of Periyar without delay and Thuglak was the simplest magazine to achieve this. This added a terrible name to the ruling DMK who did not need the mag to be circulated. The problem changed into seized by the authorities, but Cho reprinted it and the mag changed into offered in black. What changed into bought for Rs 10, became then sold for Rs 50 and Rs 60. Dr. Kalaingar had (inadvertently) promoted the magazine in that way and within the next issue, Cho had thanked him as its exposure supervisor”
On the fiftieth anniversary event of a Tamil mag, Rajinikanth had reportedly stated on January 14 that at a rally in 1971 led through overdue Periyar, idols of Lord Ram and Sita were taken out without any garments on them and the deities also featured a garland of sandals. Rajinikanth refused to apologise for his remarks on Periyar announcing that the remarks have been based totally on reviews which have already regarded in the media.
The petitioner R Umapathy, who’s DVK’s Chennai district secretary, alleged that Rajinikanth had made false and fraudulent statements insulting the Dravidian stalwart and fans of Periyar while speaking at the golden jubilee celebrations of Tamil mag ‘Thuglak’ right here lately. He contended that “Rajinikanth made fake and fraudulent statements insulting Dravidian ideologists and the fans of Thanthai Periyar to provoke breach of public peace through promoting enmity and hatred among the people of Tamil Nadu in the call of the religion”.
Dravidar Viduthalai Kazhagam (DVK) had accused the actor of uttering a blatant lie and demanded his unconditional apology and additionally filed police court cases searching for action towards him. DVK Secretary Umapathy in his petition submitted that he had lodged a criticism with police on January 18 however no FIR was registered.
Rajnikanth told that
“A controversy has emerged that I stated something that did not occur. But I did not say whatever that did not occur. I best said what I heard and things that seemed in magazines. Sorry, I will now not apologize or apologise”.
Amid a raging controversy over his remarks, Rajinikanth, however, stood with the aid of his feedback keeping they had been factual and refused to apologise as demanded with the aid of fringe Dravidian clothes. The actor displayed clippings from magazines and newspapers in the guide of his declare. The DVK had filed a complaint accusing that Rajnikanth defamed Periyar. The DVK sought movement in opposition to Rajinikanth under IPC Sections 153 (a) (promoting enmity between unique corporations on grounds of religion, race, place of beginning, residence, language, and many others.) and 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief).
A court docket in Chennai on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed in opposition to actor Rajinikanth over his remarks on rationalist chief E V Ramasamy “Periyar.” Second Metropolitan Magistrate Roslyn Durai but granted liberty to the petitioner to record non-public criticism for defamation, damages and reimbursement. The Magistrate rejected the petition by using the Dravidar Viduthalai Kazhagam, a fringe outfit, searching for a direction to the police to report a case towards the actor. The Magistrate said, “The speech of actor Rajinikanth is at high-quality defamatory. The offence under segment 499 r/w 500 of Indian Penal Code on my own appears to be made out. The offence is non-cognisable and maintainable as a private criticism.” On hearing a recording of Rajinikanth’s speech at some point of the golden jubilee celebrations of Thuglak mag on January 14, 2020, the Magistrate said:
“He (Rajinikanth) has stated what he notion become a reality about a rally held in Salem in 1971 via Thanthai Periyar, and which consistent with him became additionally published within the Thuglak weekly magazine of that length.”
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.