HC quashes complaint against Annamalai over his 2023 remarks on Thevar

The Madras High Court on Thursday quashed a private complaint filed by a Salem-based activist Piyush Manushagainst former Tamil Nadu BJP chief and We The Leaders founder K Annamalai, over his “blood abhishekam” remark during a 2023 press meet.

The complaint was lodged over Annamalai’s reference to the alleged historical incident involving Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar and former chief minister CN Annadurai. He had claimed that “Thevar had warned in 1956 that he would perform ‘blood abhishekam’ for Madurai Meenakshi Amman if atheists continued to insult theists”.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan allowed Annamalai’s petition seeking quashing of the complaint and set aside all proceedings pending against him before a judicial magistrate’s court in Salem.

The then DMK government in Tamil Nadu had, on April 28, 2024, granted sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for prosecuting Annamalai under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The magistrate subsequently took cognisance of the offences and issued summons in February 2026, following which Annamalai moved the high court.

Appearing for Annamalai, advocate Arun C Mohan told the court that his client had made the remarks while responding to comments by DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin on Sanatana Dharma. “I, as any other politician in the country, had an opinion on the subject. In the course of stating my opinion on the subject... I had referred to a historically recorded incident involving Muthuramalinga Thevar and former chief minister CN Annadurai,” he submitted.

Mohan said there were different versions of the historical incident, but the broad account was that Annadurai had addressed a temple event and Thevar had disagreed with his speech.

The counsel argued that the complaint appeared to proceed on the basis that Annamalai should not have referred to the incident even if it was historically true.

He also submitted that the magistrate had taken cognisance of the private complaint without conducting a preliminary inquiry or giving Annamalai an opportunity of hearing.

Mohan further argued that the complaint did not identify two discernible communities between whom Annamalai had allegedly attempted to create a divide by referring to the historical incident.

The complainant’s counsel however, argued that the magistrate had rightly taken cognisance of the “provocative” statement. He also told the court that Annamalai was “in the habit” of making such speeches during his stint as former president of BJP’s Tamil Nadu unit.

The high court, after hearing the submissions, quashed the proceedings against Annamalai.