Madras High Court Quashes Sedition Case Against Publishers Keera and Thamil Bala

The Madras High Court in Chennai has quashed a criminal sedition case registered against two book publishers, observing that anyone advocating for a separate Tamil nation in modern unified India would be viewed as having mental health issues. Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed the charges under Section 124 (A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against publishers Keera, alias Moorthi, and Thamil Bala.

The legal dispute arose over a book released in 2014, titled "Tamil Desia Thalaivar Tamilarasanin Vaazhvum Aramum". The book documented a historical proclamation made in 1967 in Coimbatore by a figure named Tamilarasan. In that proclamation, Tamilarasan had asserted that Tamil Nadu should become a separate nation and suggested that guerilla warfare should be adopted to divide and secede from India. Following the book's publication, the police registered a criminal case of sedition against Keera and Thamil Bala.

In their defence, the publishers petitioned the high court to quash the proceedings. The petitioners relied on a landmark Supreme Court order in the S G Vombatkere case. They submitted to the court that the rigours of Section 124 (A) of the IPC are no longer in tune with the current social milieu. They argued that a mere statement or historical record does not entitle the police to file a charge under the sedition law.

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy recorded these submissions and ruled in favour of the publishers. In his observation, the judge highlighted that India is currently unified in heart and soul as a nation. Under this present-day scenario, the court remarked that if anyone speaks about dividing Tamil Nadu into a separate nation, they will certainly be considered as having mental health issues.

The court also defined the legal boundaries of sedition, stating that the gravamen of the offence of sedition is, by way of written or visible representation, bringing into hatred, contempt, or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards the government established by law. The ruling establishes that publishing historical accounts of past secessionist statements does not justify criminal prosecution under Section 124 (A) of the IPC.