HC Quashes FIR Against BJP Leader Malviya, Flags Udhayanidhi’s Remarks as Hate Speech

The BJP on Wednesday called for the removal of Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin following a Madras High Court order quashing a 2023 FIR against party leader Amit Malviya , who had criticized Stalin’s remarks on Sanatana Dharma .

A division bench of the Madras High Court , presided over by [Judge Names – placeholder] , on Jan 20, 2026 , ruled that the FIR registered by Tiruchi city police against Malviya for “distorting” Udhayanidhi Stalin’s comments was without merit . In its judgment, the bench observed that the Deputy Chief Minister’s statements “ amounted to hate speech ” and were “ derogatory towards Sanatana Dharma and its followers .” The court also noted that the FIR against Malviya, who is the BJP’s IT department in-charge , appeared to be politically motivated .

The FIR, filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including 153A (promoting enmity between groups), 295A (deliberate insult to religion), and 505(2) (statements creating public mischief) , had alleged that Malviya had distorted Stalin’s comments . The High Court quashed the case, ruling that Malviya’s post on X (formerly Twitter) was an expression of political opinion and did not constitute a legal offense.

In his post, Malviya had sharply criticized Udhayanidhi Stalin’s statements in which the Deputy CM reportedly likened Sanatana Dharma to diseases such as coronavirus, malaria, and dengue , and called for its eradication. Malviya had described the comments as an attempt to “call for genocide of 80 percent of the Indian population” who follow Sanatana Dharma.

Reacting to the High Court’s verdict, BJP national spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla said, “ Satyameva Jayate (Truth alone triumphs). After the High Court’s reprimand, there is no justification for Udhayanidhi Stalin to remain in his position. He should be immediately removed, and a case should be filed against him for hate speech against Hindus. ”

The DMK has not yet issued a formal statement, but party insiders described the BJP demand as “political posturing” and urged “restraint in interpreting legal proceedings as political judgments.”

Legal experts suggest that the next steps could involve either a review petition by the Tamil Nadu police or a potential appeal in the Supreme Court , but the High Court’s order currently protects Malviya from further proceedings related to the FIR.

The controversy underscores the increasing tensions between political rhetoric and freedom of speech , particularly in cases involving religion and political criticism , and has reignited debates on the limits of public statements by elected officials .