Proceedings stayed against journalist who shot documentary on CM

Says police can’t invoke provisions in every other case that have political overtones

The Madras High Court on Tuesday stayed all further proceedings pursuant to registration of a First Information Report (FIR) by Chennai central crime branch police against New Delhi-based journalist Mathew Samuel, 48, and six others for having shot a documentary accusing Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami of being the mastermind behind the 2017 Kodanad estate heist-cum-murder.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh granted the stay for a limited period of four weeks after doubting the applicability of legal provisions under which the FIR had been booked. He prima facie agreed with senior counsel N.R. Elango, representing the petitioners that irrelevant sections of the Indian Penal Code had been invoked against the journalist and others.

The FIR had been booked under Section 153A and 505 of IPC. Tracing the legislative intent behind Section 153A, the judge pointed out that it was primarily intended at keeping a check on fissiparous, communal and separatist tendencies, whether based on grounds of religion, caste, language or community or any other ground. Just because the provisions also use the words ‘any other ground,’ it would not give a leeway to the police to book every other case under the Section.

Expansive meaning

He pointed out that it had become a norm for the police to invoke Section 153A and 505 (statements promoting hatred between two groups on the ground of religion, race or community) in almost every other case having political overtones. Though such cases would at best be affecting only the interest or reputation of individuals, the police end up booking FIRs by giving expansive meaning to the terms used in them.

Disapproving of the prosecution’s argument that the word ‘community’ used in the legal provisions should not be confined only to those divided on the basis of religion and that it should be construed to mean any two groups, the judge said the words ‘any other ground’ and ‘community’ must be read

ejusdem generis with the previous words used in the Section since those words constitute a genus and disclose a category.

The principle of ejusdem generis would be applicable when particular words pertaining to a class, category or genus were followed by general words. In such a case, the general words must be construed as limited to things of the same kind as those specified. Therefore, invocation of Section 153A and 505 in the present case did not appear to be appropriate though the issue required a deeper consideration during the final hearing of the FIR quash petition, the judge said.

During the course of arguments, the prosecution had contended that the documentary had led to unnecessary tension in the State with the principal opposition party staging a demonstration outside Raj Bhavan and blocking traffic.