Madras HC declines relief to DMK Gen-Z wing leader over CM Vijay post

Madras HC Declines Anticipatory Bail for DMK Gen-Z Wing Leader on CM Vijay Post

Madras HC declines relief to DMK Gen – The Madras High Court ruled on Monday that the social media post against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay had crossed the threshold of acceptable political critique and “affected the conscience of society.” The court stated it was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Gen-Z wing coordinator A Anbanantham in a case involving an allegedly derogatory Instagram post that targeted Vijay, his family, and a film actor.

Following the court’s decision, Anbanantham withdrew his anticipatory bail application, which was set for review by Single Judge Justice C Kumarappan. During the hearing, Justice Kumarappan emphasized that the post was not merely harmless and that the petitioner seemed to believe he could express any opinion on social media under the banner of free speech.

This post affects the conscience of the society. He (petitioner) has taken it as a carte blanche,” said Justice Kumarappan.

The judge also indicated that even if Anbanantham filed an affidavit apologizing for the post and promised not to make similar remarks, the court would not grant him relief. An FIR against Anbanantham was filed by the police in Krishnagiri district on June 23, following a complaint from a Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) functionary.

The complainant, M Moorthy, presented a pen drive containing the videos to the police and requested investigative action. The police subsequently cited him for offenses including criminal intimidation, making disparaging remarks, and gestures intended to insult a woman’s modesty, as well as intentional insult and intent to provoke under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Prior to the high court intervention, Anbanantham had sought anticipatory bail from the Principal District and Sessions Court in Krishnagiri. However, the court dismissed his request on June 29, arguing that he frequently used social media to gain ‘cheap publicity’ by sharing explicit content. The sessions court noted that while the government could not suppress free speech, political criticism could not extend to personal attacks on an individual’s private life.

Ayesha Arvind

Ayesha Arvind is a Senior Assistant Editor, specializing in legal and judicial reportage. She tracks high courts and tribunals, highlighting key legal developments and their broader implications.