K. Ponmudy. File | Photo Credit: B. Velankanni Raj
On Tuesday (September 16, 2025), the Madras High Court concluded a written petition of the Suo Mot in April against a derogatory speech submitted by former Minister K. Ponmuda against Saivites, VaiShnavit and women in general. She took note of the fact that the police have already received more than 100 complaints against him, but closed all of them after the Prima Facie did not find the case to register the first information report (companies).
Justice N. Sathish Kumar granted freedom to the complainants to address judges of jurisdiction who question the reports of the closure that the police served them. He also said that the former minister was not supposed to show such manifestations, although he claimed that he remembered what someone else said at the age of 70. For people who have high positions to give such manifestations, it is not possible to be well, the judge added.
The orders were handed over after the general lawyer PS Raman announced the court that Judge N. Anand Venkates of the Supreme Court took Suo Motu knowledge of the problem after the manifestation of the then Minister of Forest became a virus on social media. The speech was presented at the event organized by Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam in Chennai 8 April.
Mr. Ponmuda resigned from the cabinet 27. April after Judge Venkates took Suo Motu knowledge of the expression 23. April 2025 and wrote: “These comments (then minister) are completely derogatory women and intentionally spewing poison and hatred of two main sects of Hinduism see.”
The judge also wrote: “The Minister admitted that he admitted these derogatory comments and in fact was removed from the post of Deputy Secretary General.
AG stated that the proposal for the registration of the Suo Mot was initiated by the court for the assumed police inactivity, and told Judge Kumar that the police had actually received more than 100 complaints and that all were closed to the complainants after proper intimation. He also said that the former minister remembered only what had been spoken in the past, and therefore would not fall into the category of hateful manifestations.
AG said that the complainants were not uncommon and that they could always question the police action before the court judges concerned.
Published – 16 September 2025 06:39
