The
Supreme Court on Monday extended the stay on the trial of a criminal case
lodged against Tamil Nadu BJP president K Annamalai for allegedly delivering a
hate speech against Christians in an interview to a YouTube channel in October
2022.
A
bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta asked the complainant to file
his response within six weeks.
"Interim
order to continue. Re-list the matter in the week commencing September 9,"
the bench said.
At
the outset, the bench noted that it is a private complaint and the state has
not been made party in the matter.
Senior
advocate Indira Jaisingh, appearing for the complainant, V Piyush, informed
that it is a private complaint and sought some time to file the
counter-affidavit.
The
proceedings in the criminal case against Annamalai were stayed by the top court
on February 26.
After
perusing the transcript of the statements given in the interview, the bench had
observed, "Prima facie, there is no hate speech. No case is made
out."
The bench, however, issued a notice to the complainant, who has accused
Annamalai of delivering the hate speech against Christians in the interview on
October 22, 2022 with regard to the bursting of crackers two days before
Diwali.
Annamalai
has moved the top court challenging a February 8 Madras High Court order that
had refused to quash the summons issued to him in the case.
The
high court had observed that the psychological impact on an individual or a
group must also be considered under the definition of hate speech.
The
summons was issued by the trial court based on Piyush's complaint.
The
high court had noted that Annamalai had given an interview to a YouTube
channel, the run-time of which was nearly 45 minutes, and a six-and-a-half-minute
excerpt of it was shared on the BJP's X handle on October 22, 2022.
The
content of the message was that an internationally funded Christian missionary
NGO was allegedly involved in destroying the Hindu culture by filing cases in
the Supreme Court to prevent Hindus from bursting crackers.
Prima
facie, the statements disclosed a divisive intent on the petitioner's part to
portray the NGO as acting against the Hindu culture, the high court had said.