CHENNAI: A government confident of itself should meet criticism with arguments and mockery with performance rather than resorting to arrests, observed the Madras High Court while granting anticipatory bail to a Greater Chennai Corporation councillor belonging to DMK, who is accused of making derogatory remarks against Chief Minister Vijay.

When the prosecution alleged that D Sudha, Ward 95 councillor, used derogatory words against Vijay at a party function on October 7, the court noted that no complaint was lodged for 12 days and that a TVK functionary filed a complaint only on October 19, following which a notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS was served on her.

During the hearing, Sudha tendered an apology to the CM through an affidavit and also gave an undertaking promising to exercise restraint in future. She contended that the speech was directed against the head of a rival political party and not targeting any community or to incite violence. She further submitted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the police already possessed all the relevant materials.

Opposing the plea, the State argued that the speech amounted to naked abuse of the person occupying the highest elected office in the State and was intended to provoke cadres of rival parties.

After hearing the plea, Justice N Ramesh observed that political speech, however hostile or intemperate, was protected under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution and could be restricted only on the grounds specified under Article 19 (2).

The court observed that the office of the chief minister was not so fragile that a ward councillor's harsh speech could shake it and that arresting people for such remarks would diminish the State itself. A confident government should respond to criticism with arguments; mockery with performance; and abuse, where it crosses the line, through defamation proceedings.

The court further held that insults or defamatory remarks against a public functionary should be addressed through defamation proceedings and not by registering cases under the BNS. Public order provisions could not be used as a substitute for defamation proceedings in the absence of any conflict between communities or proximate danger to public order.

Emphasising police neutrality, the court said the police must maintain an even hand between the ruling party and its opponents and should not use arrests to threaten the Opposition.

Considering the circumstances, the court granted Sudha anticipatory bail subject to conditions.