Court issues non-bailable warrant against ex-minister K. Ponmudy in hate speech case
A city court in Chennai has issued a non-bailable warrant against former minister and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader K. Ponmudy, directing the police to arrest him and produce him before the court by September 2. The order came after Mr. Ponmudy failed to appear for trial proceedings in a case where he is accused of making a speech that allegedly promoted hatred against the Hindu religion.
The case was registered based on a complaint filed by Uma Anandan, a councillor from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The complainant alleged that a speech delivered by Mr. Ponmudy on April 6, 2025, promoted hatred against the Hindu religion and hurt religious sentiments. Although the speech was made at a closed-door event, it was later uploaded on YouTube and other social media platforms.
The speech was delivered at the DMK Youth Wing office in Chennai, where Mr. Ponmudy reportedly spoke about Saivism and Vaishnavism. Following the controversy over his remarks, the DMK removed him from the post of deputy general secretary of the party on April 11, 2025.
Mr. Ponmudy has been booked under Sections 196(1)(a) (promoting disharmony, enmity or hatred on religious grounds), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and 302 (uttering words or making gestures with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The case is pending before the III Metropolitan Magistrate Court in George Town, Chennai.
On Thursday, when the matter came up for hearing before Magistrate C. Sundarapandian, a petition was filed on behalf of Mr. Ponmudy seeking exemption from personal appearance. The court dismissed the plea. As Mr. Ponmudy had failed to appear for previous hearings as well, the court issued a non-bailable warrant and directed the police to arrest him and produce him before the court on or before September 2.
The developments mark the latest turn in a case that raises questions about the limits of free speech and the legal consequences of remarks perceived as inflammatory. The court's decision underscores the judiciary's insistence on personal appearance in criminal proceedings unless valid grounds for exemption are established.
