When protests broke out in December 2014 against Perumal Murugan’s Madhorubhagan , the sequence of events quite clearly established that it was not a spontaneous reaction to the work of fiction.
This view expressed by a number of writers and artists then has been validated by the landmark judgement that the Madras High Court delivered on Tuesday. The Bench led by Chief Justice S.K. Kaul reiterates multiple times in its judgment the positive role the State is expected to play when the fundamental rights of a citizen is under attack.
Released in 2010 in Tamil, the book met with critical acclaim for the manner it portrayed the life of Ponna and Kali—a childless couple in Tiruchengode who are constantly battered by societal notions of what constitutes masculinity and the idea of motherhood as an essential element that completes a woman’s life. In 2013, the English translation of the book, titled One Part Woman , was published. There was no adverse reaction to this either for a full year. As the court points out, it was only after Mr. Murugan attended an event in Singapore that the controversies suddenly erupted, pointing to an orchestration of outrage by external elements. Caste and religion were dragged in to add fuel to fire, with those with a criminal background like Yuvaraj, the accused in the Gokulraj murder case, taking full advantage of the mess. Worsening the situation was the silence that the two main Dravidian parties maintained on the issue. Many saw this as a tactical move not to offend the Kongu Vellalar community in western Tamil Nadu, with elections around the corner. The entire episode forced Mr. Murugan to evocatively declare the death of the writer in him.
The court has clearly taken a critical stand on the role the Namakkal district administration played. Instead of protecting the writer, the State chose to placate faceless protestors by forcing an apology out of Mr. Murugan. The authorities were partisan towards protecting law and order than the fundamental rights of an individual. The court observes: “In such simmering circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the State Government to ensure that the law and order situation does not go out of hand, but that is ought not be achieved by placating anyone who seeks to take law and order in his own hand at the cost of the person who has peacefully expressed his/her view.” A clear distinction has been sought to be made between routine law and order issues and those involving fundamental rights of citizens.
The Bench also went one step further and recommended framing of guidelines to handle such cases. The most crucial of these is what the court calls “presumption in favour of free speech and expression.” “This presumption must be kept in mind if there are complaints against publications, art, drama, film, song, poem, cartoons or any other creative expressions,” said the Bench.
