Anda di halaman 1dari 32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Special Original Jurisdiction)


(Under Art.226 of the Constitution of India)

W.P. No. 2668 of 2015


S. Balamurugan,
General Secretary,
Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL),
Tamil Nadu & Puducherry
255/123, 3rd Floor, Hussaina Manzil,
Angappa
Naicken
Street,
600001.
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Chief Secretary,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600009.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Collegiate Education,
DPI Complex,
Chennai 600 006.
3. District Collector,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
4. Superintendent of Police,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
5. District Revenue Officer - DRO,
Namakkal.
6. Revenue Divisional Officer - RDO,
Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.
7. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tiruchengode Sub-Division,
Namakkal District.
8. Inspector of Police,
Tiruchengode Town Police Station,
Tiruchengode.
9. Dr. Perumal Murugan,
S/o R. Perumal,
No. 3/58, Kongu Nagar,
Mohanur Road, Namakkal- 637 002.
...Respondents
Page No.: 1
No. of Corrns

Chennai-

Affidavit of S.Balamurugan
I, S. Balamurugan, s/o

R. Shanmugam, aged about 47 years,

Advocate, residing at 54, Vallalar Nagar, Vadavalli, Coimbatore,


641041, now temporarily come down to Chennai, do hereby solemnly
and sincerely affirm and state as follows:
1. I am the Petitioner herein and as such I am well acquainted with
the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. I state that I am the General Secretary of the Peoples Union for
Civil Liberties (PUCL) - Tamil Nadu and Puducherry State units, a
national level human rights organisation. I am an Advocate by
profession and I practice in the District Courts in Coimbatore and
Erode. I am filing this affidavit based on information and knowledge
made available through personal discussion with Prof. Perumal
Murugan, noted author of the novel `Madhorubagan and other
documentary materials that pertain to the case made available by him.
3. I am filing this writ petition in public interest seeking a
Declaration that the agreement dated 12.1.2015 signed by author and
novelist Prof. Perumal Murugan on one side and a set of local leaders
from Tiruchengode town on the other side, in a meeting headed by the
DRO, Namakkal (5th Respondent) and in presence of 6th and 7th
Respondents, by which Prof. Perumal Murugan was forced to tender
unconditional apology for hurting the feelings of the people of
Tiruchengode and agreeing to withdraw all unsold copies of his book
`Madhorubagan, as being illegal, unconstitutional and not being
enforceable as it was obtained through coercion and under hostile
circumstances; and consequently for this court to formulate a set of
guidelines, based on constitutional principles, which would help guide
government functionaries and officials to deal with situations of
increasing hate crimes and attack on all forms of creative expressions writing, painting, film making etc. under the pretext of offending
caste, community, language, regional and other identity based
emotions and sentiments.
4. I state that this PIL is being filed for two reasons: firstly, because
Prof. Perumal Murugan has been subjected to continuous, vicious and
hostile personal attacks by caste-and-religion based groups who have
repeatedly threatened personal harm and injury to both him and his
family unless he apologised for writing the novel `Madhorubagan
resulting in the prolific writer being forced to sign the impugned
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

agreement

dated 12.1.2015 accepting to withdraw all copies of his

book and to announce unconditional apology; which, in turn, led to his


announcing in the prime of his career, his decision to henceforth stop
writing and withdraw all his books. He continues to be under threat.
This incident has sent shock waves amongst writers, authors and film
makers for extra-judicial, casteist and religious forces seem to be
dictating what creative persons can say, do, write or express and there
is no protection given by state authorities to such creative persons
from such attacks. The climate of intolerance, bigotry and prejudice,
unless checked in a strong and forthright manner, will lead to stifling of
creative expressions which seeks to question and critically examine
cultural, social and religious practices and also lead to silencing
dissenting and contrarian opinions, under threat of violence and
victimisation.
5. The second, and more important reason for this PIL, is the
problematic role of the state authorities in the entire episode in
virtually doing nothing to enforce the rule of law and safeguard
fundamental rights of speech and expression. To the contrary,

the

officials through their action have indicated their tacit support to the
agitators.

This

raises

key

issues

of

the

role,

obligations

and

responsibilities of state authorities in enforcing fundamental rights


especially rights under Art. 19(1)(a) and 21 and the consequences of
the state authorities not fulfilling or performing their constitutional
obligations. The importance of evolving a set of guidelines based on
constitutional principles to guide officials and government functionaries
becomes all the more important in the present context of increased
hate speech and extrajudicial groups threatening authors and writers,
artists and film makers and other creative artistes as to what is
deemed right, appropriate and acceptable, and coercing them with the
threat of physical danger, to write or express in ways they deem
acceptable.
6. A number of such instances of attack on creative artistes have
occurred in Tamil Nadu with the state authorities playing a silent or
indifferent role in protecting the writers fundamental right to free
speech and expression. We list a few such major incidents:
(i) In

January,

2015,

during

the

Pongal

festival,

Thu

Gunasekaran (Thurai Guna), a Dalit writer, was attacked for


his book `Oorar Varaintha Oviyam by non-Dalit caste
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

groups and driven away with his family from his village,
Kulanthiranpattu in Pudukottai district.
(ii) In 2013, K. Senthil Mallars book `Meendezhum Pandiyar
Varalaru (published in 2012) on rewriting the history of
Pandyas was banned by the TN Government and a case was
filed against him for being anti-national u/s 124A IPC. His
father-in-law was arrested and jailed and the book was
denounced as it could create disharmony amongst certain
castes.
(iii) In 2012, another author, Ma Mu Kannans house was burnt
and he was chased out of his village for a book titled,
Kaana-inaavin Kanini which addressed issues of sexual
perversion and decadence.
(iv) In 2000, HG Rasool, was forced to apologise to the Jamaat
Panchayat as his poetry book Mailanji was considered to
have anti-Islamic views.
(v)In 1992, Bama, (a pen name for a Tamil Dalit woman from a
Roman Catholic family) and her family were attacked by
locals for writing an autobiographical novel, `Karukku about
her village, the people of her community and their lives.
(vi) Apart from books, films too have not been spared attacks
by sectional groups on grounds of the creative works
offending their sentiments. For example, in 2013, the Tamil
film produced by noted actor Kamalhasan, `Viswaroopam,
was

subjected

demanding

its

to

mass

ban.

protests

The

state

by

religious

government

groups
meekly

surrendered to the agitators enforcing an undeclared ban on


the film, on the pretext that they lacked sufficient police
strength to protect theatres from vandalism.
(vii) Similarly, in November, 2011, another film `Dam 999 was
banned by the TN Government, in the wake of prolonged
protests by different political groups and parties. The film
portraying the dangers of a dam burst was opposed by
political groups in TN on the ground that it alluded to the
Mullaperiyar dam over which a major dispute existed
between Kerala and TN states. The Government notification
tersely announced that the ban was effected because the
film was creating fear amongst people in TN.
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

(viii) More recently, a few political groups and organisations


protested over the Diwali (October, 2014) release of a Tamil
film `Kathi on the issue of the producer of the film being
close to the then Sri Lankan President. The protestors also
demanded that the name of the producer be removed from
publicity materials. When the producer decided to go ahead
with the screening as he had obtained necessary Censor
Board clearances, 2 theatres were attacked. Though 2 FIRs
were

registered,

negotiations

were

initiated

with

the

opposing groups which led to an agreement between the


producer and protestors to remove the objected names from
the film and publicity materials after which the film was
permitted to be released in theatres in T.N. The producer
thereafter approached this court seeking police protection
for displaying their name in the film. The State Government
opposed the relief saying that the `Letter of undertaking
was entered into by the producer on his own accord and he
cannot therefore now ask for protection. This contention of
the TN government was negatived by this court pointing
that it cannot grant judicial approval for an agreement
obtained under coercion pointing out that:
... The Respondents (i.e. state) cannot allow such
blackmail to succeed. If it is allowed to succeed, it will
automatically lead to extortion and the surrender of the
power of governance and the rule of law to a few
intolerant people.
(LYKA Production Pvt Ltd vs. State of TN and others, 2014
SCC Online Mad 8448).
7. I state that the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) is a
national level human rights organization formed in 1976 by freedom
fighters such as

Jayaprakash Narayan, Acharya Kriplani and others,

during the Emergency, the darkest period in the history of independent


India. The PUCL has since been headed at the national level by
stalwarts such as Justice V.M.Tarkunde, (former Judge of the Bombay
High Court), Prof. Rajni Kothari, Justice Rajinder Sachar (Retired Chief
Justice of the Delhi High Court) and Mr. K.G. Kannabiran, Senior
Advocate and well known jurist. Prof. Prabhakar Sinha is the present
National President. The PUCL has Chapters in more than 22 states in
India. It has been in the forefront of issues pertaining to civil liberties
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

and democratic rights. The PUCL is a completely voluntary body and


does not receive any institutional funds. Members of the PUCL work for
the organization only because of their commitment to the cause of civil
liberties and receive no remuneration. It has members from all walks of
life and in Tamil Nadu its membership consists of lawyers, doctors,
scientists, professors, teachers, journalists and others. The PUCL has
filed several public interest litigations in the Supreme Court and in the
High Courts and many of the judgments are important landmarks in
the development of human rights law in our country. Most of the
judgments are reported in various law journals.
8. PUCL has always held that the fundamental right of speech and
expression u/Art. 19(1) (a) is one of the key underpinnings of
democracy and rule of law. As has been held by the Honble Supreme
Court and different High Courts, the right of free speech and
expression is a crucial right, in such a diverse and complex country
such as ours with numerous language, religious, caste, regional and
other identity diversities; any attempt, by the State (government) or
non-state players, to deny free speech and expression ultimately
weakens democracy. PUCL has consistently opposed any attempt to
restrict free speech. PUCL holds that right to free speech includes the
right to dissent and protest, irrespective of whether it is the state
which is denying the right or non-state or extra-judicial organisations or
groups.
The following are three well known cases filed by PUCL on issues
relating to freedom of speech and expression:
(i) It was the PUCLs effort which led to the SC upholding the right
to

privacy

of

the

citizen

under

Art.

19(1)(a)

against

indiscriminate telephone tapping which led to the landmark case


popularly

called

the

telephone

tapping

case.

(Peoples Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India, 1997 (1) SCC
301).
(ii) In `PUCL vs Union of India, 2003 (4) SCC 399, the SC expanded
the right of citizens right to free speech and expression to
include the citizens right to Know about the antecedents of
electoral candidates as an elementary part of the electoral
system underlying republican democracy.
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

(iii) In `PUCL vs Union of India, 2013 (10) SCC 1, the SC held that
making provision of the button for `None of the Above or NOTA,
is an essential part of the voters right to show her /his lack of
support to any of the contesting candidates.
It is by way of our contribution to safeguarding this very vital
right that PUCL felt that it is important to approach this Honble Court
through this PIL in the present case.
9. I state that Prof. Perumal Murugan is a prominent Tamil writer
whose work is widely acclaimed for sensitivity to local historical and
cultural practices in Tiruchengode region of Namakkal district, his
discerning and insightful understanding of social relations amongst
different social and caste groupings in the Kongu region and
meticulous research into social, anthropological and literary mores,
language and cultural expressions, sexuality and power relations and
so on. It is given his acclaimed status as one of the foremost writers in
Tamil language that we felt it important to understand why such a
violent protest had erupted over his book, `Madhorubagan, with caste
and religious groups leading the protests. In particular we, like
numerous others, were shocked when we read in the newspapers that
soon after Prof. Perumal Murugan signed an agreement before the
RDO, Namakkal on 12.1.2015, he issued a post in the Facebook page
declaring that Author Perumal Murugan has died. He is no god, so he
is not going to resurrect himself. Nor does he believe in reincarnation.
From now on, Pe. Murugan will survive merely as a teacher, as he has
been. These were strong words which mirrored the intensity of
emotional devastation he seemed to have undergone in the traumatic
weeks since early December, 2014 till the DRO-brokered agreement
dated 12.1.2015.
10.

What caused concern was that even on 7.1.2015 he had

publicly clarified that he had no intention of insulting Tiruchengode, its


people, religion or caste. He expressed his distress to see that his work
was causing disruption in the lives of people of Tiruchengode. He
clearly expressed his sadness and stated that in future editions he
would remove references to Tiruchengode. He thereafter called upon
the public and protesting groups not to engage in any form of protest
that would disrupt normal life. Seen against this background, it was
clear that something very drastic must have happened in the
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

intervening 5 days between 7th to 12th January, 2015 to so drastically


affect Prof. Perumal Murugan that he felt compelled to renounce writing
altogether; especially when he did not disclose any such intention on
7th January, 2015.
11.I met Prof. Perumal Murugan in his house in Namakkal to
ascertain what had occurred and was shocked to find out that what
was reported to be a spontaneous agitation of local people against his
book Madhorubagan, was actually a deliberately stoked and carefully
built up hate campaign by a combination of vested interests, including
caste based groups, Hindu-religious organisations, and other political
outfits. Before a consideration of what occurred in Dec. 2014 Jan
2015, it will be instructive to consider briefly Prof. Perumal Murgans
achievements.
12.Prof. Perumal Murugan hails from a modest peasant family
belonging to the Kongu Gounder community of Tiruchengode. Apart
from being a dry land farmer, his father ran a soda stall in a small
cinema

theatre

in

Tiruchengode.

Although

from

very

humble

background, Perumal Murugan had a strong desire for knowledge and


by sheer dint of hard work and perseverance he slowly progressed
through school and college to finally earn a Ph.D. in Tamil studies from
Madras University. For the last 17 years he is working as a faculty
member in Tamil department and is currently working as Associate
Professor of the Arignar Anna Government Arts College, Namakkal. His
wife is also a Ph.D. in Tamil and also works in the Tamil department of
the same college as Assistant Professor. Theirs is an inter-caste
marriage and had seen hostility from both communities in an area
suffused with strong caste affiliations, differences and conflicts.

He

lives in Namakkal with his wife. They have 2 children, a daughter and
son who are both in college.
13.Prof. Perumal Murugan is a prolific writer in Tamil and has
published in all genres ranging from poetry, short story, essays,
collection of historical works, novels and other forms of writing, as the
following list will show:
(i)

9 novels, with his first novel `Eru veyil, published in 1991.

(ii)

4 short story collections.

(iii)

4 poetry collections.

(iv)

8 essay collections.

Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

(v)

1 dictionary - `Kongu Vattara Cholagarathi Lexicon of terms


in Kongu Region.

(vi)

4 edited volumes of articles by historical personalities of


Kongu region.

(vii) 7 edited volumes of collected writings.


Prof. Perumal Murugan is the recipient of numerous awards.
Notable amongst which are the Government of Tamil Nadus State
Award for Best book (the dictionary) in 2002. He also won the Katha
prize in 2000. His novel `Koolamadari was translated into English as
Seasons of the Palm, was shortlisted for the prestigious Japanese
`Kiriyama Award, an international literary award. He has also won the
`Vilakku Pudumaipithan Award (USA) in 2012. He also received the
Kasturi Srinivasan Trust award. Numerous awards were also given by
organisations in his native Kongu region in recognition for his
contribution to documenting life, culture, history and literature (both
oral and written) of the area. Anirudhan Vasudevan, translator of
`Madhorubagan in English titled, `One Part Woman has recently
received a Canadian award.
14.

I have pieced together the following sequence of events

based on Prof. Perumal Murugans narration as also documents


collected and made available to us. The novel `Madhorubagan was
published by Kalachuvadu Publications in December, 2010 and publicly
showcased in the Chennai Book Fair in January, 2011. The title
`Madhorubagan is taken from the name of the presiding deity of
Tiruchengode Siva temple and depicts the unique concept of Ardhanari
showing Lord Shivas body made up in equal parts of Shiva and
Goddess Parvathi. The story is fictional and is clearly stated so in the
novel itself.
15.

The novel is set in Tiruchengode, Namakkal district, Tamil

Nadu some time before Indias independence. The book chronicles the
life of a couple, Kali and Ponna who though intensely in love with each
other were struggling with the social implications of being childless.
The novel itself is structured around exploring the problem of
barrenness and social and community trauma that childless couples
have to undergo in some communities. It dramatises an earlier existing
custom of consensual union among consenting adults outside of
marriage encouraged during the time of village festivities thereby
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

10

providing the couple with community legitimated solution for the


problems of childlessness. It contains very powerful and earthy
dialogues carrying fascinating idiomatic local expressions. The story is
very gripping and reflects the deep understanding of social history,
practices and also the psyche of people, on the part of the author. The
novel is representative of one of the finest expressions of artistic
creativity which weaves intense human stories around social history
allowing the reader a glimpse into the lives of ordinary, rustic villagers
living in Tiruchengode area. As the author himself points out in his
statement dated 7.1.2015, Through the ages, the desire to produce
children to perpetuate ones lineage has been an intense one for many
people. Today assisted modes of conception have a licensed presence
in our world. In olden days, such facilities did not exist. People have
followed, in various ways, the practice of begetting a child by engaging
in sexual union with a man other than ones husband. There is
evidence for such practices in the Mahabharatha.
16.

The novel was an instant best seller selling more than 500

copies in the 2011 Book Fair. In all Kalachuvadu has brought out 4
editions, selling over 5,000 books. It is still a popular book and has
received rave book reviews and critical acclaim from both scholars as
also litterateurs in different Tamil and English journals, magazines and
newspapers.
17.

The success of `Madhorubagan in Tamil, as also the

growing popularity of his other books translated into English (Koola


Madari translated as `Seasons of the Palm and `Nizhal Mutram
translated as `Current Show) led to requests for translation into
English. Eventually the Tamil book was translated into English by
Anirudhan Vasudevan (doctoral candidate at the University of Texas,
Austin) and published by Penguin India in 2013 with the title, `One
Part Woman. The English version also was well received with good
reviews in respected journals / magazines like `The Open Magazine,
`Caravan and other publications. In the 4 years after the Tamil edition
and for a full year after the English version, there was not even a hint
of controversy. So much so, in November, 2014 Prof. Perumal Murugan
took a break to attend a writers workshop in Bangalore to complete
the final draft of 2 sequel novels to Madhorubagan- Ardhanari and
Aalavayan.
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

11

18.

Prof. Perumal Murugan returned to his house in Namakkal on

1st December, 2014. Soon after he returned, some local people,


unknown to him, asked him for copies of `Madhorubagan. He gave
them some copies. Soon thereafter he reported getting phone calls
from anonymous callers. It seems many callers did not even know the
name of the book. Many of them also got his name wrong. It was
obvious that they had not read his book. Initially the callers abused
him for bringing disrepute to their town, Tiruchengode, and disputed
that there was ever a practice of free sexual liaison during the chariot
festival of Tiruchengode festival.
19.

I learnt from him that with each caller, he patiently

explained that the novel was fictional using past and extant social
practices. He also explained that the book explores many more facets
of social life and relationship in Tiruchengode, of which sexual practice
was only one dimension. When I enquired why he was at all
responding, Prof. Perumal Murugan explained that being a local person
himself, he felt it was important for him to explain to people the
background to the novel as they, like him hailed from the same place
and required to hear his point of view. During my discussions with him,
Prof. Murugan came through as a gentle, sensitive and caring human
being; and so I could well believe him when he said he initially felt
obliged to explain the work to those who questioned his work.
20.

He shared with me that soon thereafter it became apparent

to him that these were not mere local people upset about some parts
of the book. There was a pattern behind the way they started abusing
and threatening him, for every caller had a similar demand: extend
unconditional apology for hurting the sentiments of local people,
especially women and change the name of Tiruchengode in future
editions. The tone and tenor of the calls also became very threatening
and intimidating. During this time he said he was also accosted on the
streets and in public places by people, posing as locals, who
aggressively demanded he apologise for hurting their sentiments. Very
soon it became apparent that apart from local people, Hindu ideology
groups like RSS, Hindu Munnani and other outfits, including local BJP
party

members,

as

also

caste

based

organisations,

especially

belonging to the dominant Kongu Gounder community had got


together to orchestrate the campaign against him.
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

12

21.

Things turned worse when around mid-December, 2014,

over 10,000 small booklets of his book containing the cover pages
(front and back sides) which included his contact number and address,
and specific pages, viz., 84, 85, 86, 87, 115, 117, 118 and 172 in which
select paragraphs / lines were underlined suddenly surfaced. These
booklets were circulated throughout Tiruchengode, especially amongst
women. The booklet did not contain the name of the organisation
which had printed it or who was circulating it. The intention seemed to
ensure that whoever read the booklet containing isolated pages torn
out of their context in the book, would not only get a wrong and
distorted understanding of the work but also become prejudiced
against the author.
22.

Shortly after the above booklet, another pamphlet was

circulated. This time too, without any name, but providing contact
numbers for readers to contact. These were 94432-52682; 9578131287; 98427-47547; 94432-59496. The pamphlet highlighted how the
novel brought disrepute and infamy to the local men, women and
society of Tiruchengode amongst neighbouring areas, created feeling
of disgust about them and also affected their livelihoods. The pamphlet
demanded that the Government of TN should prosecute the author
under the most stringent provisions of criminal law and that he should
be dismissed from his post of Professor in the local Namakkal Arts
College for poisoning the minds of students with such filthy ideas and
bad practices.
23.

Prof. Murugan reported that soon after the circulation of

these pamphlets he and his wife felt very distressed. On one hand they
felt genuinely concerned that so many local people were upset about
the book and could not understand that it was a fictional work; on the
other hand, the viciousness of the personalised attacks unnerved them
both. While they feared for their personal safety, they hesitated to go
to the police lest the issue flare up more and reach a point when there
could be no reconciliation. He said he kept trying to reach out to the
local leaders to explain and reassure them that he meant no
disrespect. But he didnt succeed.
24.
hostility

The atmosphere in Tiruchengode was surcharged with


and

animosity

engineered

by

vested

groups.

It

was

disappointing that the police did nothing to prevent the circulation of


the inflammatory pamphlet despite it being circulated openly.
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

13

25.

By around the 24th December, 2014, it seems that various

caste and religion based groups had publicly announced their plan to
take a procession in Tiruchengode demanding a ban of the novel
`Madhorubagan and arrest of its author.
26.

Thereafter on 26th December, 2014, as announced, a

procession was organised in Tiruchengode. Newspapers reported that it


was led by Mr. Mahalingam, President of Tiruchengode town RSS unit
and others. Papers also reported that the gathering shouted slogans
against Prof. Perumal Murugan demanding his arrest and ban of book.
The processionists also reportedly burnt copies of the book. This was
done in the presence of the local police who did nothing to stop this
incident. The event was widely covered in local newspapers and also in
the Hindu newspaper.
27.

I learnt from Prof. Murugan that though he had prepared a

complaint addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal dated


24.12.2014, he withheld from filing it as he was hoping that the local
police would persuade the protestors to call off the procession and
arrange for talks. Since this did not happen, on 26 th December, 2014,
he personally met the SP, Namakkal, (the 4th Respondent herein), in his
office in Namakkal and lodged the written complaint. In the complaint,
he clearly stated about receiving threatening phone calls and also
provided specific mobile numbers from which he had received the
intimidating phone calls. He also informed the SP that the hate speech
using abusive terms was being spread through the social media,
including the `WhatsApp medium. Prof. Perumal Murugan also
reportedly sought protection for himself and his family members and
also preventive action against any untoward incident.
28.

In the meantime, a complaint dated 26.12.2014, was filed

by the Morur Kannakula Kongu Naatu Velalar Trust with the Inspector of
Police, Tiruchengode naming (a) Prof. Perumal Murugan and (b) Ms.
Shalini as Editor, Kalachuvadu and demanding action against them
under secs. 295 (A), 501, 502 and 120 (b) IPC. This complaint also
specified certain pages of the book namely Pages 86-87, 116-118, 127
and 172 as the offending pages which were the same pages mentioned
in the pamphlet circulated throughout the town. It is important to point
out here, that Ms. Shalini is not the editor of Kalachuvadu but is only an
employee of the publication.
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

14

29.

Prof. Perumal Murugan reported that he was quite

saddened by the turn of events. He said that on 27 th December, 2014


he issued a press statement clarifying that his novel was not written
with the intention of denigrating any person and did not have even the
slightest intention of hurting anyones sentiments. This was reportedly
published in the Hindu Tamil newspaper and in Dinakaran newspapers.
Despite this, there was no response to the statement from anyone. By
31st December, 2014 he left for Chennai to finalise the proof version of
his 2 sequel works, Aalavayan and Ardhanari.
30.

It must be noted that in both the sequel novels, the name of

Tiruchengode has been changed to `Karattur. Prof. Perumal Murugan


explained to me that he did this on his own, as he was upset that local
people felt that their feelings were hurt because of the use of
Tiruchengode in his novel. The 2 books were released ahead of the
Chennai Book Fair on 3rd January, 2015. After the event Prof. Perumal
Murugan returned home in Namakkal on 04.01.2015.
31.

Finding the atmosphere in Namakkal and Tiruchengode still

very tense and hostile to him, Prof. Perumal Murugan heard about a
plan to organise a bandh on 9.1.2015. Posters and pamphlets had been
circulating

throughout Tiruchengode in the name of Combined

Sangams of Tiruchengode and the common people, calling upon the


residents to protect their honour and support the bandh to show their
protest to Madhorubagan and its author, and for having denigrated
and brought disrepute to the deity of Tiruchengode, Ardhanariswarar,
the chariot car festival and women. All devotees, traders and all other
organisations were exhorted to support the bandh on 9 th January, 2015.
32.

Prof. Murugan told me that he got very upset to hear that

his book was causing so much uproar and felt bad as a bandh would
seriously inconvenience so many common people. So he decided to
appeal directly to the people through a Press statement dated
7.1.2015. In this statement he clearly explained that Madhorubagan is
a work of fiction and Tiruchengode in the novel is not the town it is
today. He also clarified he had no intention of insulting Tiruchengode,
its people, religion or caste and explained that the story is a fictional
creation based on traditions as traced in sources as varied in the
Mahabharatha to folk lore. Expressing his regret at what people were
feeling about the novel, on his own volition, he offered to remove all
references to Tiruchengode in subsequent editions of the novel and
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

15

requested

people

not

to

engage

in

any

protest

that

would

inconvenience people. On the same day, 7.1.2015, Prof. Perumal


Murugan also wrote to the Inspector, Tiruchengode Town Police Station
(8th Respondent herein) in which he reiterated that he had no intention
of hurting anyones sentiments.
33.

It became apparent that the organisers of the bandh were

planning to go ahead with the bandh. On 8th January, Prof. Perumal


Murugan said he was called to the office of Namakkal SP. There he met
the DSP, Tiruchengode (7th Respondent) who told him that a meeting
had been arranged with the protestors in the evening of 8 th January
before the RDO, Tiruchengode. The DSP reportedly advised Prof.
Perumal Murugan not to go to Tiruchengode himself but instead asked
him to address 2 letters: one to the RDO, Tiruchengode (6 th
Respondent) and another to the Inspector of Tiruchengode Town Police
Station (8th Respondent) which they could use during their meeting
with the agitators. Prof. Perumal Murugan said he gave 2 hand written
letters, as advised. In both letters, Prof. Perumal Murugan expressed
his sincere regret to all the common people and organisations for his
book causing hurt to their sentiments. He also informed that
(a) He was going to recall all the unsold books sent for sale;
(b) within 3 months he would change the controversial paragraphs
in a way that they would not hurt anyones sentiments; and
(c) that in the future he had no intention of writing anything in
connection with Tiruchengode.
34. I learnt from Prof Perumal Murugan that as requested by the
DSP, at about 500 pm on 8.1.2015 he went to the Office of the SP,
Namakkal so that he could be available for telephonic discussions with
the RDO, Tiruchengode and Inspector, Tiruchengode Town PS, who
were supposed to be conducting a meeting with the protestors in
Tiruchengode to resolve the issue. However, by around 930 pm he was
informed that since the protestors did not come for the scheduled
meeting between the authorities and the bandh organisers in
Tiruchengode, there was no purpose in him waiting any longer in
Namakkal. Perumal Murugan shared with me that at that time, a
friendly police officer informally advised him that it would be better for
Perumal Murugan to leave Namakkal, as the situation was in
Tiruchengode was surcharged with tension and his personal safety
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

16

could not be assured. Left with no option, he left Namakkal with his
family on the same night.
35. Prof. Perumal Murugan reached Chennai on 9 th Jan, 2015 a
very disappointed, dejected and disheartened person. He later learnt
that the bandh had been conducted with the police standing as mute
spectators. It was equally apparent that the police had no intention of
trying to avert the bandh and had not seriously done anything to
implement the rule of law or to bring about any rapprochement
between the local protestors and Prof. Perumal Murugan. In actuality by
their inaction, right from mid-December, 2014 when thousands of
booklets and pamphlets were freely circulated in Tiruchengode, or
even when posters and notices were publicly displayed seeking
support for the bandh,

the authorities were indicating their tacit

support to the protestors and their attempts to arouse and inflame


passions

amongst common people.

They

were

also

playing

dangerous game of pitting one man, a creative, soft, gentle writer,


against an array of groups, including religion-and-caste based groups
and their supporters, in an unequal contest full of dangers of physical
harm to Prof. Perumal Murugan and his family.
36. Prof. Perumal Murugan told me that in Chennai on 10.1.2015
he attended a press meeting and the Book Fair. In none of these
meetings did he speak of completely withdrawing from writing.
37. Thereafter on 11.1.2015, the 5th Respondent, DRO, Ms.
Subbulakshmi and the 7th Respondent, Inspector of Tiruchengode Town
Police Station called Prof. Perumal Murugan over phone asking him and
the publisher of Kalachuvadu to come to Namakkal Collectorate on 12 th
January, 2015 for `Peace Committee talks.
38. I learnt that Mr. S.R. Sundaram @ Kannan (henceforth referred
to as Kannan), publisher of Kalachuvadu Publications, had all along,
and especially after 26th December, 2014 incident, been telling Prof.
Perumal Murugan to leave Namakkal district and go elsewhere for his
and his familys personal safety. It seems Kannan had also warned him
that it looked like the strident and violent campaign was being
engineered by vested interests who would not stop with withdrawal of
`Madhorubagan book alone but would demand to proscribe all his
creative works. As evidence for the fact that political interests were
behind the stir, Kannan had pointed out that the 26 th Dec, 2014
complaint of the caste organisation had named Ms. Shalini as editor of
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

17

Kalachuvadu in their complaint. This shows that the agitators did not
have knowledge about the Tamil literary field as anyone with even
remote acquaintance with Tamil literary field will know that Mr. Kannan
has been the editor and publisher of Kalachuvadu Publications for over
20 years.
named

It may be noted that Ms. Shalini appears to have been

because

her

name

finds

mention

in

the

preface

to

Madhorubagan, by Prof. Perumal Murugan as having helped him. Such


ignorance on the part of the agitators, Mr. Kannan argued, lent
substance to the fact that the local people who are agitating were
mere pawns in a bigger game, being instigated by outside forces who
exploited caste and social sentiment to whip up caste hostility and
violence. This was also made clear by the fact that most of the
agitators had not read Madhorubagan in full and only select pages
were circulated to whip up mob-frenzy.

However, it seems Prof.

Murugan, wanted to settle the matter and get on with his life by
attending the peace talks in Namakkal. Mr. Kannan reportedly declined
to go to Namakkal without proper and formal intimation. He informed
that he received notice of the meeting to be held on 12.1.2015 only on
13.1.2015 and even this was wrongly addressed to Ms. Shalini. This
shows that even the officials did not bother to verify any fact and
blindly followed the dictates of the agitators.
39.

Prof.

Perumal

Murugan

said

he

contacted

Mr.

G.R.

Swaminathan, Advocate from Madurai and presently the Additional


Solicitor General in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High court, whom
he had consulted before, requesting him to accompany him to the
District Collectors Office, Namakkal for the `Peace Committee
meeting on 12.1.2015. They travelled together in a car and at the toll
gate were met by a police officer. They were taken into the Namakkal
District Collectorate through a back door and made to wait in the room
of the Assistant to the DRO, 5th Respondent herein.
40. Prof. Perumal Murugan said that he and Mr. Swaminathan
were kept confined in a separate room while the DRO met the
protestors who were in a different room. Despite requests, no face-toface meeting between Prof, Perumal Murugan and the protestors were
arranged enabling Prof. Perumal Murugan to offer his explanations and
suggestions to resolve the issues. Prof. Murugan said he had given in
writing expressing his `sincere regrets for the events. However, it
seems, the DRO, Namakkal (5th respondent herein) insisted that the
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

18

terms be changed to unconditional apology; left with no option, Prof.


Murugan changed so in his letter. Further the 5 th Respondent, DRO,
pointedly told Prof. Murugan countering his lawyer, Mr. Swaminathan,
that he should think over the fact that while the lawyer was from
outside Namakkal district, he himself was from Namakkal. So he should
keep this in mind and it would be in his (i.e. Prof. Murugan) best
interest to sign the agreement drafted by her. By that time, Prof.
Perumal Murugan told me, he was very upset with the turn of events,
and wanted to bring the entire controversy to a quietus. He also did
not see any other way out. A further issue was the personal safety his
family and himself, as his house was in Namakkal itself. So eventually
he relented and signed the agreement.
41. I state that it is instructive to know about what occurred in
the so called `Peace Meeting from a statement issued by Mr.
Swaminathan, the lawyer who accompanied Prof. Perumal Murugan. In
his statement released publicly, Mr. Swaminathan graphically describes
the hostile atmosphere prevailing in the Namakkal Collectors office
during the peace committee meeting. According to Mr. Swaminathan,
the DRO reportedly brought with her a draft which she insisted Prof.
Perumal Murugan sign without entertaining any queries, suggestions or
request for reconsidering some portions. As stated earlier, according to
the statement, the 5th Respondent, DRO reportedly refused to accept
anything other than `unconditional apology instead of `sincere regret
which was originally proposed by Prof. Perumal Murugan.
42. According to the statement, it further appears that the 5 th
Respondent, DRO, then wanted to include portions of the letter given
by Prof. Perumal Murugan in his statement dated 7.1.2015, in which he
offered to change the name of Tiruchengode and delete offending
portions in order to avert the proposed bandh. Mr. Swaminathan
reportedly objected to including this as being an unfair condition; he
also pointed out that that this offer was made as a compromise
measure in hostile circumstances and made in order to avert the
bandh; in any case the bandh had been conducted successfully,
paralysing Tiruchengode. However, the 5th Respondent DRO, Namakkal,
reportedly refused to countenance any other proposal. At this stage,
Prof. Perumal Murugan said he was emotionally shattered for he was
confronting a dire situation in which the administration and police both
had done little to restrain the protestors from whipping up a vicious
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

19

hate campaign against him and his novel; they had also done very
little to make Perumal Murugan feel secure or to make the exercise a
fair one which protected his freedom as a writer. It was under such
circumstances, he said, seeing no other option, he capitulated and
signed the impugned agreement dated 12.1.2015 even though he
personally felt it was unfair, discriminatory and obtained under duress.
43. Prof. Murugan said that he was so emotionally and
personally traumatised by the entire incident, that after his return
home from the Namakkal Collectorate, he felt that the writer in him
had been forcibly killed. He felt very humiliated for being forced to
seek an apology. As he explained it, deep down he had doubts about
the future of his writing. He felt apprehensive that at any time, anyone
could raise a controversy over any of his books. Since many of them
deal with social, cultural and political realities and relationships, all of
them were potential targets of some bigoted mind or other. At that
moment, he said, he could not see a viable and meaningful future for
himself and his writing. Considering the hostile caste and communally
oriented forces who were arrayed against him, and seeing the full
support of the district administration and police to them, he felt lonely,
atomised, powerless and defenceless. It was in this circumstance of
acute personal distress that on 12.1.2015 itself he wrote the agonising
statement in the Facebook page announcing the Author Perumal
Murugan has died.
44. I submit that Prof. Perumal Murugam was given a copy of the
official summons dated 11.1.2015 issued by the 5 th respondent, DRO,
Namakkal during the Peace Meeting at the Namakkal Collectorate on
12.1.2015. From the summons he came to learn that 5 Hindu religious
and caste groups had given complaints to the 8 th respondent, Inspector
of Tiruchengode Town Police Station, about the novel `Madhorubagan
and himself, and some of them represented groups which participated
in the procession on 26.12.2014, the day the book was burnt. The
organisations and their leaders included: (1) Mr. Pon Govindaraj,
Arulmigu Ardhanareeswarar Kovil Nala Sangam; (2) Mr. Chinnasami,
Hindu

Munnani;

(3)

Mr.

Kandasami,

Morur

Kannankula

Kongu

Nattuvellalar Arakattalai; (4) Mr. M. Madhes, Sengunthar Mahajana


Sabha, Namakkal District; (5) Mr. P.T. Rajamanickam, Kongu Vellalar
Sangangal Koottamaippu.
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

20

45. Prof. Perumal Murugan said that he had been residing in


Namakkal since then and apart from his teaching duties he and his
wife, remained secluded in their home in a virtual house arrest.
However even when he had not given a single interview or spoken
anything publicly since 12th January, 2015, venomous comments were
being made in different Facebook sites created to oppose him. In fact
Prof. Perumal Murugan narrated that during the entire period between
Dec, 2014 to 12th Jan, 2015 and afterwards, different Facebook sites
floated to oppose him contained such personally vituperative and
abusive comments about Prof. Murugans wife and mother, that the
entire family became very upset. In response to news paper reports
that PILs had been filed questioning the agreement, there were FB
posts which were a combination of being insulting, derogatory,
threatening and scurrilous. Such posts were a constant reminder to
him and his family that the problem was far from over and that he
would face continuing threat so long as Prof. Perumal Murugan and his
wife remained in Namakkal.
46. I was informed that even as of today Prof. Perumal
Murugan and his family are living under virtual house arrest out of fear
of physical violence. Apart from going to the College to teach, both he
and his wife dare not venture out anywhere.

Even the house hold

provisions are being purchased and brought by friends and well


wishers. Friends and well wishers who were standing by him through
the trying times are themselves now receiving threats. For instance a
journalist friend by name Vijay Kumar who writes for Dina Malar Tamil
daily, was targeted on face book page titled Murpokku Mafia Edirpu
Kalam (`Place for opposition to Progressive Mafia the mafia is an
euphemism for those who support the free speech rights of Prof.
Perumal Murugan). In a photograph of Vijay Kumar with Prof Perumal
Murugan his face was circled and his number was displayed, calling
upon viewers to call him and protest the fact that he was filing news
reports in favour of his friend Perumal Murugan. Such was the nature of
the daily pressure both Prof. Perumal Murugan and his wife were living
under. Under these circumstances he and his wife gave representations
dated 23.01.2015 to the Directorate of Collegiate Education, through
proper channel, requesting for a transfer for both of them from
Namakkal to city colleges in Chennai where there are vacancies in the
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

21

Tamil Departments. Ultimately being in a Metropolitan city like Chennai


is the only protection he and his family could have.
47. When specifically asked as to why he did not approach the
court on his own he expressed fear stating that as long as he is in that
area there is no safety for him and his family. He did not wish to
subject his family to any more hardships. It is in this context that I
informed him that PUCL will extend all support and also file a writ
petition in respect of the impugned order as well as the larger issue of
protecting free speech and it would be useful for him to at least give a
supporting affidavit to be filed along with the present writ petition even
if he does not directly approach the court. Initially he consented to do
so. However, just as the WP was about to be filed, he once again got
terrified and wanted to opt out. It appears that a caste organisation
leader in an influential Tamil magazine had threatened to launch state
wide protests if the 12th Jan, 2015 Agreement was rescinded. Further
an appeal was made to all other intermediate caste organisations to
oppose Madhorubagan and its author. He feared a much wider hate
campaign against him and he did not want to precipitate matters. He
felt that under the circumstances remaining silent was the only option
on account of the hostile atmosphere and physicall threats that he and
his family were under. Considering the vulnerable situation he and his
family was living in, his apprehension was understandable.
48. I state that the above narration of events will clearly
establish the dubious and partisan role played by government officials
unmindful of the fact that they were obligated under the Constitution
to fairly enforce the law by not taking sides; to protect the fundamental
rights of citizens including the freedom of speech and expression; to
take appropriate legal action against law breakers thereby enforcing
the rule of law. The narration also makes it clear that Prof. Perumal
Murugan was under situation of exceptionally harsh mental and
emotional stress, a condition made far more unbearable by the action
of the officials who instead of protecting the citizen against hostile,
unreasonable, and fanatical mob of caste and religiously affiliated
persons and organisations actually supported these forces. The
impugned agreement is therefore one obtained under duress and
coercion and cannot be held to be legal and proper. Consequently the
impugned agreement dated 12.1.2015 should be struck down and
declared illegal and unconstitutional.
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

22

49. I submit that in the present case it is clearly demonstrated


that the actions of extra-constitutional or non-state players like caste
organisations and Hindu religious organisations have played a key role
in carefully and systematically building up hostile public opinion and
feeling amongst ordinary citizens, against Prof. Perumal Murugan and
his novel `Madhorubagan which have effectively culminated in
ensuring the silencing and withdrawal of a powerfully evocative,
sensitive

and

socially

concerned

writer

thereby

violating

his

fundamental right to free speech and expression. What is equally clear


is that despite considerable material or evidence in the public domain
of the effort to whip up a hate campaign with the potential to turn
violent, neither the police nor the administration tried to do anything to
trace the culprits and to initiate appropriate action against them under
criminal laws and other laws. In fact the police and district
administration, especially Respondents 3 to 8, were unwilling to take
decisive action to prevent unlawful activities like conducting of bandhs
to suppress free speech, burning of books and personally threatening
citizens, for partisan purposes. By their lapses and inactions the
government officials are liable for appropriate disciplinary and other
punitive action.
50. At this stage it is necessary to point out that there is a
fundamental difference between this specific case and other cases of
violation of right to free speech and expression. Most reported cases so
far involved instances of a ban imposed by the government on a book,
film, documentary or art form. In the present case however, the
government has not taken any such action to ban Prof. Perumal
Murugans novel, `Madhorubagan; instead the officials have given
tacit support to extra-judicial forces in effectively ensuring the
silencing of a talented writer and his work thereby violating his free
speech under Art. 19(1)(a). I submit that it is therefore necessary to
examine the issue as involving both Art. 19(1)(a) as also Art. 21 of the
Constitution of India.
51. I submit that it is a dangerous situation, extremely
detrimental to democracy and democratic processes, if powerful and
vested caste, communal and political interests determine or force what
citizens

shall

or

shall

not

receive

or

read

as

consumers

of

communication irrespective of whether it is in the form of a book,


novel, film, comic strip, documentary or any other form. We may
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

23

usefully highlight the key jurisprudential principles underlying the


fundamental freedom of right to free speech and expression as
elucidated by the apex court and other courts in India and outside.
On the Scope of Art. 19(1)(a)
(1) Our standards must be so framed that we are not

reduced to a level where the protection of the least


capable and the most depraved amongst us determines
what the morally healthy cannot view or read. (KA Abbas
vs Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 481).
(2) ... the effect of the words must be judged by the
standards

of

reasonable,

strong

minded

firm

and

courageous men and not those of weak and vacillating


minds, nor of those who scent danger in every point of
view. (Ramesh vs Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 775).
(3) A work must be viewed in its entirety and not read
piecemeal and in disjointed manner. We find ourselves
wholly unable to take the view that the several passages on
which the learned Advocate General relies are capable of
promoting feelings of enmity and hatred between Hindus
and Muslims in India. A passage here or a passage there, a
sentence here or sentence there, a word similarly, may if
strained and torn out of context supply inflammatory matter
to a willing mind. But such a process is impermissible. We
must read the book as a whole, we must not ignore the
context of a passage and we must try and see what,
reasonably, would be the reaction of the common reader.
(Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. Union of India, AIR 1971 Bom 56)
(4) The message of a film maker cannot be gathered by
viewing only certain portions of the film in isolation but one
has to view it as a whole. (Director General, Directorate
General of Doordarshan vs Anand Patwardhan, AIR 2006 SC
3346).

Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

24

(5) Freedom of speech and expression which is legitimate


and constitutionally protected cannot be held to ransom by
an intolerant group of people. The fundamental freedom
under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably restricted only for
the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2) and the restriction
must be justified on the anvil of necessity and not the
quicksand of convenience or expediency. Open criticism of
government

policies

is

not

ground

for

restricting

expression. We must practice tolerance to the views of


others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as
to the person himself. (S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjivanram,
1989(2) SCC 574).
(6) "The right to dissent is one of the most important rights
guaranteed by our Constitution. As long as a person does
not break the law or encourage strife, he has a right to differ
from every other citizen and propagate what he believes is
his belief. A.D.M Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC
521, is a shining example of a dissent which is much more
valuable than the opinion of the majority". (Evangelical
Fellowship of India and ANHAD vs State of HP, 2012 SCC
OnLine HP 5554).
(7) Right to freedom of speech and expression includes the
right to educate, to inform and to entertain and also the
right to be educated, informed and entertained. (Secretary,
Min of I &B vs CAB, 1995(2) SCC 161.
(8) ....we must lay stress on the need to tolerate unpopular
views in the socio-cultural space. The framers
Constitution

recognised

the

of

our

importance

of safeguarding this right since the free flow of opinions


and ideas is essential to sustain the collective life of
the citizenry.

While

an

informed

citizenry

is

pre-

condition for meaningful governance in the political sense,


we must also promote a culture of open dialogue when it
comes to societal attitudes ....

Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

25

A culture of responsible reading is to be inculcated


amongst the prudent readers. Morality and
are

far

from

being

co-extensive.

criminality

An expression of

opinion in favour of non-dogmatic and non-conventional


morality has to be tolerated as the
a ground to penalise the author. (S.

same cannot be
Khushboo

vs

Kanniammal, 2010 (5) SCC 600)


On the obligation of officials and responsibility to enforce
fundamental rights
(9) "The State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every
human-being, be he a citizen or otherwise, and it cannot
permit any body or group of persons, e.g., the AAPSU, to
threaten the Chakmas to leave the State, failing which they
would be forced to do so. No State Government worth the
name can tolerate such threats by one group of persons to
another group of persons; it is duty bound to protect the
threatened group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it
will fail to perform its Constitutional as well as statutory
obligations. Those giving such threats would be liable to be
dealt with in accordance with law. The State Government must
act impartially and carry out its legal obligations to safeguard
the life, health and well-being of Chakmas residing in the
State without being inhibited by local politics." (NHRC vs State
of Arunachal Pradesh (1996 (1) SCC 742).
(10) " It is the State's obligation to create conditions where
rights of individuals or group of persons under Article 21 arc
not and cannot be violated. It is for the State and its
functionaries to evolve methods and strategic to ensure
protection of life and liberty of a person or persons which is
guaranteed by Article 21. It is obvious that there will be no use
of the rights conferred by Article 21 if the State does not exact
compliance of the same from its officials and functionaries and
private persons... The sweep of Article 21 is wide and far
reaching. Article 21 is not to be restricted to the violation of
right to life and liberty committed by the State alone. That
right is also to be protected and safeguarded by the State
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

26

from being violated or interfered with by private individuals."


(Bhajan Kaur vs Delhi (1996 SCC Online Del 484).
(11) It is the duty of the state to maintain law and order
situation in the state and therefore the state shall maintain it
effectively and potentially. (Prakash Jha vs Union of India,
2011 (8) SCC 372).
52. I submit that if we were to consider the above principles
concerning the operation of Art. 19(1) (a) r/w Art. 21 of the
Constitution, it will be clear that there has been a gross miscarriage of
justice resulting in the violation of the fundamental rights of Prof.
Perumal Murugan. But it must be stated that the matter involves not
just the rights of author Perumal Murugan but is an issue pertaining to
the democratic fabric of our nation. More over only the reasonable
restrictions enumerated in Art. 19(2) alone can be the basis to limit the
exercise of rights under Art. 19(1)(a). Anything outside the strictly
limited scope of Art. 19(2) cannot be permitted to restrain or limit the
functioning of the fundamental right to free speech and expression.
53. Then again, it must be noticed that the right of free speech
and expression has two dimensions: it covers the rights of the author
or creator of speech and expression as much as the fundamental right
of the listener or receiver of information. In effect, the action of the
respondent officials in not protecting Prof. Perumal Murugan has
resulted in not only silencing him from presenting his intellectual work
of critically examining contemporary, as also historical, social trends,
practices and relationships, but has also effectively deprived readers
from access to his critically acclaimed literature.
54. I submit that the state authorities have seriously failed in
their constitutional duty to ensure affirmation of fundamental rights of
citizens, enforce the rule of law and protect citizens from the danger
posed by vigilante groups like those in the present case, launching
hate crimes and threatening violence to effectively silence a talented
and accomplished author and writer like Prof. Perumal Murugan.
Necessary action should be initiated against them for abdicating their
constitutional duty and failing to protect the right of Prof. Perumal
Murugan.
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

27

55. It must be reiterated that the incidents surrounding Prof.


Perumal Murugan is not an isolated occurrence. There is a growing
trend of intolerance exhibited by extra judicial, non state players,
with the State abdicating its responsibilities towards protecting the
rights of citizens. In fact there is an increasing trend of the State, in
the name of peace talks, covertly and overtly extending supporters to
the law breakers and exerting undue pressure on the victims to
surrender their rights. These peace talks are in reality like kangaroo
courts with individual writers or film makers, often cornered alone
during the talks, whereas the protestors are in large numbers. The
talks are generally held in a climate surcharged with tension and
hostility. It results in an absurd situation when individuals are brow
beaten and forced to give up their fundamental rights for the sake of a
compromise. I state that the so-called peace committees conducted by
officials are akin to `katta panchayats conducted by local musclemen
or politicians. Such practices are a very serious threat to democracy
itself. Under the circumstances it is important for this Honble Court to
formulate guidelines to be followed by the state authorities whenever a
situation of threat to free speech and expression occurs.
56. I state that I am filing this PIL out of my own funds. I
undertake to pay the costs, if any, if it is found to be intended for
personal gain or ulterior motive. As stated earlier, I am filing this writ
petition based on information and personal knowledge as also on basis
of information gathered by me.
57. I state that I have not filed any other writ petition or PIL on
the same matter before this or any other court.

GROUNDS
i. The actions of the Respondent officials is unconstitutional, illegal
and has resulted in violation of fundamental right to free speech
and expression guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution.
ii. The actions of the officials have resulted in violation of the
fundamental rights of Prof. Perumal Murugan under Article 19(1)(a)
read with Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

28

iii.

It is the duty of the state government and its officials to

maintain law and order in the state and failure to maintain the law
and order situation cannot result in suppressing free speech and
expression.
iv. There has been gross abdication of constitutional obligation to
protect the rights of citizens and enforce rule of law by the district
administration of Namakkal district and the police resulting in
serious harm to a writer like Prof. Perumal Murugan and violation of
his fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(a) and Art. 21 of the
Constitution.
v. The officials have permitted the protestors in Tiruchengode to
take law into their own hands and to dictate what is to be printed
or published. This is against guaranteed fundamental rights of
writers and authors to write at will about any subject provided they
do not fall foul of the restrictions permissible under Art. 19(2).
vi. The impugned agreement dated 12.01.2015 has to be struck
down as illegal and unconstitutional as it has been obtained under
duress and threat of force by R 3, DRO, Namakkal and other
officials named in this writ petition.
vii. It is legally impermissible for the district administration and the
government authorities to convene `Peace Committee meeting
calling the writer Prof. Perumal Murugan, on the one side and
hostile and unrepentant protestors on the other, to come to an
agreement on curtailing the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Art. 19(1)(a) to the writer. Hence the convening of the `peace
committee on 12.1.2015 itself should be held to be illegal, gross
abuse of power by the DRO and other officials, including the
District Collector and SP.
viii. Till date the police officials of Namakkal District as also local
officials in Tiruchengode town have not taken action to prosecute
those who burnt the books of Prof. Perumal Murugan and indulged
in other unlawful activities on 26.12.2014. Their failure to prevent
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

29

commission of criminal activities makes the officials liable for


appropriate legal action, including disciplinary action.
ix. The district officials concerned have been selective in the
enforcement of law as between Prof. Perumal Murugan and the
protestors resulting in gross miscarriage of justice and injury to
him by way of violation of fundamental rights as also threat to his
life and of his close family members.
x. The capitulation of Prof. Perumal Murugan to accept the
conditions of the impugned agreement dated 12.1.2015 is clearly
revealed to be the result of unconscionable pressure and tension
brought to bear on him due to the unlawful and illegal activities of
the protestors and inaction of the police and administration. That
this was artificially induced can be judged by the fact that in his
statement dated 07.01.2015 there is no indication of him wanting
to pull back all his books and to announce total withdrawal from
writing as announced by him in the FB post on 12.1.2015. This is a
result of the total failure in functioning of concerned police
officials.
58. I state that Prof Perumal Murugan and his wife, Dr. Ezhilarasi
are both employed at the Arignar Anna Government Arts College,
Namakkal. Though the Government has now posted policemen outside
their house, they continue to receive threats over phone and the local
organisations are still trying to foment trouble and violence against him
and his family. Moreover he and his family have no protection when
they move about. This vulnerability has forced them to stay indoors all
the time. Only a mind without fear can be creative. Both of them have
given representations seeking transfer to any of the city colleges in
Chennai as a measure of protection. It is only proper that the I and II
Respondent do the needful. I am quite conscious of the fact that issues
of transfer are service matters where the aggrieved persons alone can
agitate. But however in the light of the extraordinary circumstances
and in the present context where the persons concerned are living
under a cloud of fear and are hesitant to directly approach this court
for fear of reprisal it is my duty to bring these facts to the notice of
this Honble Court and seek appropriate reliefs on their behalf.
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

30

Under the circumstances it is therefore prayed that this Honble


Court may be pleased to direct the I and II Respondents to consider
favourably the representations dated 23.01.2015 given by Associate
Professor Dr. Perumal Murugan seeking a transfer from Arignar Anna
Government Arts College, Namakkal to any of the city colleges in
Chennai pending final disposal of the writ petition.
For the reasons stated above it is therefore prayed that this
Honble Court may be pleased to issue writs, orders or other directions
and more particularly a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Agreement
dated 12.01.2015 arrived at between Prof. Perumal Murugan and third
parties, in the presence of the Respondents as unconstitutional, illegal
and void and consequently issue appropriate directions to the I
Respondent that in situations of threat to fundamental rights of citizens
on account of protests, intimidation or any such extra legal measures
by

non-state

or

extra-constitutional

individuals,

groups

and

organisations, (a) to immediately provide discreet police protection to


the victims be it authors, publishers, distributors, film directors,
producers, theatres etc, (b) to provide the option of transfer to another
place of choice and safety if the victim is government employee, (c) to
refrain from exerting pressure on victims to agree either orally or in
writing to surrender or give up their rights in the name of enforcement
law and order, (d) to take immediate action against the law breakers
by registration of FIRs and other appropriate action, (e) to educate the
officials - both revenue and police, on the importance of protecting
fundamental right of citizens under all circumstances and their duties
thereof, and

(f) direct the state of Tamil Nadu to have regular

programs on literary, film and art appreciation and criticism in schools,


colleges,

Administrative

Training

Institutes

and

Judicial

Training

Academies, and pass such other or further orders as may be deemed


necessary and this render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this
)
th
The 26 day of Jan, 2015
)
And signed in my presence )

Before Me

Advocate, Chennai
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

31

High Court: Madras


WP No. 2668 of 2015
S. Balamurugan,
Gen. Secy, PUCL-TN/P
..

Petitioner

Versus
State of TN, rep by
Chief Secy, Govt. Of TN
And others
..
Respondents

Affidavit of S. Balamurugan

M/s NGR Prasad, 140/61


D. Nagasaila, 753/88
Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

32

Counsels for Petitioner

Page No.: 2
No. of Corrns.:

Anda mungkin juga menyukai