W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 03.08.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

W.P.Crl.(MD).No.4272 of 2026

R.Kanagavel Pandian

....Petitioner

Vs

1. The Director General of Police (DGP)

Tamil Nadu Police,

Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore,

Chennai 600 004.

2. The Commissioner of Police

Chennai city police,

No.124, EVR Sampath salai,

Vepery, Chennai 600 007.

3. The Commissioner of Police

Madurai City Police,

Alagar Kovil Road,

Madurai 625 002.

4. The Managing Director,

Sun Group / Adithya TV Channel,

Sun TV Network limited,

Murasoli Maran Towers,

73, MRC Nagar Main road,

MRC Nagar,

Chennai 600 028.

.....Respondent(s)

1/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents 1 to 3 to

register a First Information Report on the basis of the petitioner’s

complaints dated 26.07.2026 and 27.07.2026, investigate the alleged

criminal conduct of the management of the fourth respondent, its

producers, camera crew and the four participants concerned, in

accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2

SCC 1, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may

deem fit and proper.

For Petitioner: Mr.M.Jegadeesa Pandian,

For V.B.Sundhareshwar

For R-1 to R-3: Mr.D.Rajaboopathy

Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

ORDER

Prologue:

A nation is not sustained by geography alone. Its enduring

identity is forged by the sacrifices of those who placed the freedom of

generations yet unborn above their own liberty, wealth, profession,

family and physical well-being. The freedom enjoyed today is the fruit

2/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

of suffering consciously embraced by innumerable men and women,

many of whom died in obscurity and several of whom lived long

enough only to witness public ingratitude.

2. Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai occupies an exalted place

among such immortals. His life was not a mere episode in the

chronicle of the freedom movement. It was a compelling

demonstration that political freedom would remain incomplete

without economic self-reliance. By establishing the Swadeshi Steam

Navigation Company, he translated the idea of “Swadeshi” from an

inspiring slogan into a formidable commercial challenge to colonial

supremacy.

3. The British Empire was not sustained by political power

alone; it was equally fortified by its economic monopoly. Thiru V.O.

Chidambaram Pillai understood this with remarkable clarity. He

therefore confronted imperial power not merely through speeches,

but through indigenous enterprise. His ships became floating

symbols of Indian self-respect. His commercial venture was, in truth,

3/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

a declaration that Indians possessed the intellect, industry and

courage to control their own economic destiny.

4. The price exacted from him was merciless. He was

prosecuted, sentenced to terms of transportation for life,

incarcerated and subjected to degrading physical labour. The image

of that learned lawyer and patriot being compelled to draw the oil

press in prison is permanently engraved upon the conscience of

Tamil society. It was through such suffering that he earned the

reverential appellation “Kappalottiya Thamizhan” and “Chekkizhutha

Semmal.”

5. Historical figures are not immune from scholarly inquiry.

Their ideas, methods and public actions may be studied, debated

and critically evaluated. Freedom of speech protects honest criticism,

academic reassessment, satire and artistic expression. But a

distinction exists between informed criticism and uninformed

ridicule; between satire which illuminates and mockery which merely

humiliates; and between creative freedom and the casual falsification

of history for commercial amusement.

4/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

6. The present case lies at that sensitive intersection. It raises

questions concerning freedom of expression, the responsibility of a

broadcaster, the dignity owed to the collective historical memory of a

people, the statutory mechanism governing initiation of criminal

proceedings and, above all, the possibility of securing a restorative

remedy proportionate to the wrong complained of.

Factual Matrix:

7. The petitioner is a practising Advocate, a social activist and

the President of an organisation known as “Makkal Thalaivan V.O.C.

Makkal Nala Peravai.” Claiming to be deeply interested in preserving

the legacy of Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai, he has invoked the

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

8. The fourth respondent operates “Adithya TV,” a television

channel having considerable reach among the Tamil-speaking public.

A programme styled “Digital Diary” was scheduled to be telecast on

the said channel. In anticipation of the programme, a promotional

5/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

clip of about thirty seconds was broadcast on the channel and

uploaded on certain social-media platforms on 23.07.2026.

9. The promo featured four participants, comprising two men

and two women. During their conversation, references were made to

Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai, his association with the Swadeshi

Steam Navigation Company and the appellation “Chekkizhutha

Semmal.”

10. According to the petitioner, the statements were not merely

historically inaccurate but were calculated to trivialise the sacrifices

of the freedom fighter. One participant allegedly described him as a

mere “boatman.” Another allegedly reduced his contribution to

rowing a boat from one shore to another. A further statement

allegedly employed a wholly inappropriate comparison with a

character from the Mahabharata. The participants were shown

applauding and laughing at those remarks.

11. Deeply aggrieved, the petitioner submitted complaints on

26.07.2026 through telephone, WhatsApp and e-mail to respondents

6/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

1 to 3 and to the Chief Minister’s Special Cell. Physical copies were

thereafter dispatched by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due

on 27.07.2026. Alleging that the complaints disclosed cognizable

offences, but that no First Information Report had been registered,

the petitioner approached this Court.

12. Apart from the principal prayer for registration of a First

Information Report, the petitioner sought interim directions for

removal of the promo from the fourth respondent’s television channel

and social-media handles and for the telecast of an unconditional

public apology during prime-time hours.

Stand of the Fourth Respondent:

13. The fourth respondent filed a counter-affidavit through its

authorised signatory, Mr. M. Jyothi Basu. It acknowledged that a

thirty-second promotional clip had been released on the television

channel and social-media platforms on 23.07.2026.

14. The fourth respondent stated that members of the family of

Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai contacted the Head of Adithya TV on

7/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

25.07.2026 and requested that the promo be removed and that the

episode scheduled for telecast on Sunday at 10.00 a.m. be cancelled.

15. According to the fourth respondent, immediate remedial

measures were taken.

It was specifically stated that:

(i) the proposed full episode was cancelled and was never

telecast;

(ii) the promo was removed from Adithya TV by 10.00 a.m. on

25.07.2026;

(iii) it was removed from Instagram by 11.00 a.m. on

25.07.2026; and

(iv) it was removed from YouTube by 3.20 p.m. on 26.07.2026.

16. It was further stated that the family appreciated the

prompt response and that a granddaughter of the freedom fighter

acknowledged the remedial action through a Facebook post. The

fourth respondent also pointed out that, for the preceding five years,

it had telecast documentaries about Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai

8/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

on 5 September, his birthday, and on 18 November, his death

anniversary.

17. On maintainability, the fourth respondent contended that

criminal defamation is a non-cognizable offence and that, under

Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,

cognizance of such an offence could be taken only upon a complaint

made by a person aggrieved. According to it, a social activist could

not seek registration of a First Information Report for alleged

defamation of a deceased person when the members of the freedom

fighter’s family had accepted the corrective measures.

18. The fourth respondent also relied upon the statutory

remedy before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to

Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It

consequently sought dismissal of the writ petition.

9/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner:

19. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

promo was the outcome of a planned production. It had necessarily

passed through the stages of scripting, recording, editing and

editorial approval before being broadcast. The channel could not,

therefore, distance itself from the material by stating that the

programme had been produced by an external agency.

20. It was argued that the participants’ apology on an internet

platform was not an adequate corrective measure. Since the offensive

promo was broadcast through the fourth respondent channel, the

apology ought to be disseminated through that very channel with

comparable visibility. An apology offered in a different medium would

not necessarily reach the same audience exposed to the offending

material.

21. The learned counsel ultimately submitted that the

immediate concern of the petitioner was not retribution but public

correction. He therefore pressed for a visible apology on the fourth

respondent channel and for measures capable of educating young

10/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

viewers about the life and sacrifices of Thiru V.O. Chidambaram

Pillai.

Submissions on behalf of the 4

th

respondent:

22. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth

respondent submitted that the impugned material was only a promo

and that the full programme was never telecast. The programme had

been produced by an external production team, and there was no

intention on the part of the channel to insult or defame Thiru V.O.

Chidambaram Pillai.

23. The learned Senior Counsel invited the attention of this

Court to the speed with which corrective measures were undertaken.

The episode was cancelled, the promo was removed from the channel

and social-media platforms, the persons responsible were removed

from the programme, and the participants were required to tender an

apology.

24. It was further submitted that the fourth respondent had

been commemorating the birth and death anniversaries of Thiru V.O.

11/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

Chidambaram Pillai for the preceding five years by telecasting

documentaries concerning him. This conduct, according to the

fourth respondent, established that the impugned incident was an

aberration and not the manifestation of an institutional intent to

disparage the freedom fighter.

25. During the hearing, the learned Senior Counsel fairly

stated that the fourth respondent desired to give a quietus to the

issue. He undertook that the apology already tendered by the four

participants would be telecast on Adithya TV itself. He also expressed

the fourth respondent’s willingness to undertake suitable

educational and socially beneficial measures suggested by the Court.

26. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

Point for Consideration:

27. The following questions arise for consideration:

12/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

(i) Whether this Court should issue a positive direction for

registration of a First Information Report on the petitioner’s

complaints dated 26.07.2026 and 27.07.2026;

(ii) Whether the fourth respondent can disclaim editorial

responsibility merely because the programme was produced by an

external producer;

(iii) What is the nature of the responsibility borne by television

broadcasters while portraying national leaders and freedom fighters;

and

(iv) Whether, in the light of the subsequent corrective measures

and the undertaking given to this Court, the proceedings can be

disposed of through proportionate and restorative directions?

Analysis:

28. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the Constitution

Bench decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar

Pradesh

1

. The principle that registration of a First Information

Report is mandatory when information presented to the police ex

facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence admits of no

doubt. At the same time, Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar

1 (2014) 2 SCC 1

13/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

Pradesh

2

cannot be understood as dispensing with the statutory

classification of offences or the procedural safeguards governing

prosecution for particular offences. A writ court, while exercising

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily does not

undertake the functions statutorily entrusted to the police or the

jurisdictional Magistrate. Where the substance of a complaint relates

to a non-cognizable offence, the machinery governing such an

offence must be followed. Where the law restricts cognizance to a

complaint by a “person aggrieved,” the said statutory requirement

cannot be rendered otiose through a general writ direction.

29. Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023, embodies the special rule governing cognizance of the offence

of defamation. Its object is to prevent criminal defamation

proceedings from being initiated by strangers having no legal

grievance and to confine prosecution to persons recognised by the

provision.

30. Equally, Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, preserves the authority of the jurisdictional

2 Supra 1

14/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

Magistrate to consider an application seeking investigation in an

appropriate case. The statutory remedy is not an empty formality. It

enables the Magistrate to examine the complaint and supporting

documents and determine whether an investigation, preliminary

inquiry or other course permissible in law is warranted.

31. This Court does not propose to pronounce, in the present

summary proceedings, whether every allegation made by the

petitioner is confined exclusively to defamation or whether any

distinct cognizable offence is disclosed. Such a determination must

be undertaken by the competent authority upon an objective

examination of the complaint and the applicable statutory

provisions.

32. Consequently, no blanket direction can be issued

commanding respondents 1 to 3 to register a First Information

Report for a pre-determined set of offences. At the same time, the

petitioner’s complaints cannot be discarded merely because one of

the allegations may relate to criminal defamation. However, having

regard to the genuine remorse expressed by the fourth respondent

15/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

and the prompt remedial measures undertaken by it, this Court is of

the considered view that the criminal proceedings need not be

pursued any further.

Editorial responsibility cannot be outsourced

33. The fourth respondent submitted that “Digital Diary” was

an outsourced production. Outsourcing may explain how the

material came to be created; it does not efface the broadcaster’s

responsibility for deciding what enters the public domain through its

channel.

34. A broadcaster possesses institutional control over the

means of dissemination. It selects the programme, schedules the

telecast, approves promotional material and derives commercial

benefit from viewership. The ultimate editorial gatekeeping function

remains with the broadcaster. Contractual arrangements with an

independent producer cannot operate as a shield against public

accountability.

16/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

35. A television promo is not an insignificant or private

rehearsal. It is deliberately designed to attract viewers. Indeed, it

may be repeated more frequently and reach a wider casual audience

than the principal programme. Describing the impugned material as

“only a promo” therefore does not diminish the need for editorial

scrutiny. A promo may be brief in duration, but the injury caused by

it may be neither brief nor confined.

36. Digital publication has further altered the nature of

dissemination. A clip broadcast for a few seconds can be recorded,

copied, reposted and circulated beyond the control of its original

publisher. Editorial responsibility must therefore be exercised before

dissemination. Removal after publication, though relevant in

mitigation, cannot invariably reverse the consequences of digital

circulation.

37. In A.S. No.971 of 2015, this Court had occasion to

consider the responsibility of a television broadcaster which

possessed the authority to edit, cut, delete or modify objectionable

material before telecast. The decision emphasised the duty of a

17/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

broadcaster to verify content and exercise the editorial authority

available to it. An apology published through a third-party medium

may not reach the same body of viewers to whom the offending

programme was transmitted. The medium of correction must, as far

as possible, correspond to the medium of the original publication.

Freedom of speech and historical responsibility

38. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects freedom of

speech and expression. This freedom is indispensable to

constitutional democracy. Courts must remain vigilant against

measures that produce a chilling effect upon legitimate journalism,

scholarship, humour, artistic creativity or political criticism.

39. Yet freedom of speech is neither freedom from

responsibility nor a licence for reckless falsehood. Article 19(2) itself

recognises constitutionally permissible limitations. The law does not

require uncritical reverence for every historical personality. It does,

however, demand that freedom be exercised with due regard to

reputation, public order, decency and the rights of others.

18/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

40. Satire, when informed and skilfully employed, can expose

hypocrisy and challenge power. But ignorance masquerading as

satire contributes little to public discourse. When a freedom fighter’s

suffering is converted into a crude punchline, without historical

context or discernible social purpose, the result is not the

democratisation of history but its debasement.

41. This Court is particularly concerned about the effect of

such content upon children and young adults. For a substantial

section of the younger generation, television and social media are not

supplementary sources of information; they constitute the principal

window through which society, politics and history are perceived. An

inaccurate representation, when repeatedly amplified through

entertainment media, can displace historical truth in the popular

imagination.

42. The fourth estate has traditionally been described as a

sentinel of democracy. Its power is not confined to reporting events.

It frames public conversations, identifies social priorities and shapes

the values through which citizens understand themselves and their

19/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

nation. The greater its reach, the greater is its obligation to exercise

intellectual honesty and social responsibility.

43. Entertainment channels do not stand outside this

responsibility. Entertainment is a legitimate and valuable pursuit,

but the quest for ratings cannot justify the distortion of national

history or the humiliation of those whose suffering made

constitutional liberty possible. Commercial success and civic

responsibility are not mutually exclusive.

The significance of Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai:

44. Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai was born on 5 September

1872. Trained in law, he could have pursued a secure and

prosperous professional life. Instead, he chose the hazardous path of

resistance to colonial authority.

45. His establishment of the Swadeshi Steam Navigation

Company was a remarkable act of economic nationalism. It

challenged the entrenched monopoly of British shipping interests

and enabled Indian enterprise to sail, literally and symbolically,

20/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

under its own flag. The venture demonstrated that political

subjugation was inseparable from economic dependency.

46. The colonial administration responded with prosecution

and exemplary punishment. The suffering inflicted upon him was

intended not merely to punish one individual but to intimidate an

awakening population. Yet, the image of V.O.C. drawing the oil press

transformed the intended instrument of humiliation into an enduring

symbol of sacrifice.

47. The honours conferred upon him by public memory are

therefore not ceremonial exaggerations. They are a people’s

acknowledgment of an unpaid historical debt. His name belongs not

only to his biological descendants but to every citizen who enjoys the

liberty for which he suffered.

48. The Court does not suggest that freedom fighters should be

placed beyond historical examination. Genuine scholarship honours

them by subjecting the past to careful inquiry. What must be

resisted is the culture of uninformed derision in which every

21/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

institution, sacrifice and personality is reduced to momentary

content intended solely to provoke attention.

Subsequent conduct and restorative justice:

49. The fourth respondent’s subsequent conduct deserves fair

acknowledgement. The complete episode was not telecast. The promo

was removed from the television channel and thereafter from

Instagram and YouTube. The family members’ grievance was

promptly attended to. The participants were made to issue an

apology. The fourth respondent has also asserted, without material

contradiction, that it has commemorated V.O.C.’s birth and death

anniversaries during the preceding five years.

50. These circumstances support the fourth respondent’s

submission that the impugned incident was not the product of a

settled institutional design to malign Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai.

They mitigate the gravity attributable to the broadcaster’s intention,

though they do not extinguish its editorial responsibility.

22/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

51. The learned Senior Counsel’s fairness has enabled the

Court to adopt a restorative course. The object of constitutional relief

in a matter such as the present one is not vengeance. A direction

that transforms an unfortunate incident into a sustained programme

of historical education will serve the public more meaningfully than a

merely punitive order.

52. An apology is valuable when it is visible, unequivocal and

communicated to substantially the same audience that received the

offending material. It is not an admission of institutional hostility.

On the contrary, the willingness of a broadcaster to correct itself

enhances, rather than diminishes, its credibility.

53. The fourth respondent’s undertaking to telecast the

apology on Adithya TV is accordingly recorded. Its expressed

willingness to undertake educational measures relating to the life of

V.O.C. is also taken on record. On that basis, the following directions

are issued.

23/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

54. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Writ Petition is

disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The undertaking given on behalf of the fourth respondent

that the apology tendered by the four participants concerned shall be

telecast on Adithya TV is recorded.

(ii) The fourth respondent shall telecast a clear, visible and

intelligible public apology on Adithya TV. The apology shall

specifically state that the statements contained in the promotional

clip concerning Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai were inappropriate,

historically insensitive and inconsistent with the respect owed to the

sacrifices of the freedom fighter.

(iii) The apology shall be telecast during a prominent viewing

slot, with adequate audio and visual clarity, on three occasions

within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order. It shall not be obscured by advertisements, scrolling messages

or distracting visuals.

(iv) The same apology shall be uploaded on the official social-

media handles on which the impugned promo was originally

published and shall remain accessible for a reasonable period.

24/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

(v) The fourth respondent shall ensure that neither the full

episode nor the impugned promotional clip is rebroadcast, re-

uploaded or commercially exploited through any platform under its

ownership or control.

(vi) The fourth respondent shall formulate and implement an

internal editorial-review protocol for programmes and promotional

material referring to freedom fighters, national leaders, historically

significant events and constitutionally sensitive subjects. The

protocol shall ensure reasonable verification and review before

broadcast or digital publication.

(vii) In discharge of its social responsibility, and from the funds

lawfully allocable for Corporate Social Responsibility activities, the

fourth respondent shall institute an annual State-level elocution

competition concerning the life, sacrifices, legal career, Swadeshi

enterprise and economic vision of Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai.

(viii) The said competition shall be conducted every year in

connection with the birth anniversary of Thiru V.O. Chidambaram

Pillai on 5 September. The first such competition shall be conducted

during the academic year 2026–2027.

25/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

(ix) To ensure meaningful participation, the competition shall

be organised in age-appropriate categories for:

(a) students of Standards I to V;

(b) students of Standards VI to VIII;

(c) students of Standards IX to XII; and

(d) students pursuing undergraduate courses.

The topic, language, duration and mode of presentation shall

be suitably adapted to each category. Participation shall be open and

inclusive, without discrimination.The final round of competitions to

be telecasted by the 4th respondent every year.

(x) The fourth respondent may coordinate with the School

Education Department, the Higher Education Department and

recognised educational institutions for conducting preliminary,

district-level and State-level rounds. The exercise shall be

educational and non-commercial and shall not be used as a vehicle

for partisan publicity.

26/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

(xi) The fourth respondent shall procure and distribute 1000

copies each of the books- Swadeshi Steam: V.O. Chidambaram Pillai

and the Battle against the British Maritime Empire, authored by

Professor A.R. Venkatachalapathy, VA.VU.CHI -Pannool

Thirattu:Vee.Arasu-special publication of the Government of Tamil

Nadu and Kelaatha Kathai:Gurusamy Mayilvahanan- subject to

availability and compliance with copyright and procurement

requirements.

(xii) The said books shall be distributed to students and

libraries of identified schools administered by the Greater Chennai

Corporation and other Government schools, in consultation with the

competent educational authorities. The distribution shall prioritise

institutions where access to books concerning the freedom

movement is limited.

(xiii) The fourth respondent shall bear the expenditure for the

annual competition, prizes and distribution of books from its eligible

Corporate Social Responsibility allocation, subject to the Companies

Act, 2013, the applicable rules and all statutory accounting and

27/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

disclosure requirements. Nothing in this order shall be construed as

permitting expenditure contrary to the governing CSR framework.

(xiv) The fourth respondent shall telecast, on or about 5

September every year, an educational programme or documentary of

reasonable duration concerning the life and contributions of Thiru

V.O. Chidambaram Pillai. The programme shall be historically

researched, suitable for young audiences and presented in an

engaging manner.

(xv) A compliance affidavit concerning the initial telecast of the

apology, commencement of the book-distribution exercise and the

proposed schedule of the first State-level competition shall be filed

before the Registry within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order.

55. The above directions are founded substantially upon the

corrective position adopted and the undertakings offered on behalf of

the fourth respondent. They shall not be treated as a finding of

criminal guilt against the fourth respondent, its officers, the external

producer or the participants.

28/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

Epilogue:

56. Every generation receives freedom as an inheritance, but

no generation is entitled to receive it without understanding the price

at which it was purchased. When history is forgotten, liberty

becomes detached from sacrifice, citizenship from duty and

patriotism from principle.

57. Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai did not merely operate a

ship. He launched a people’s aspiration across waters controlled by

an empire. He did not merely endure imprisonment. He converted

the cruelty of incarceration into an enduring testament to courage.

The oil press that was intended to break his spirit became, through

the alchemy of sacrifice, a sacred symbol of resistance.

58. It is therefore profoundly disturbing when such a life is

reduced to uninformed laughter. The concern is not that a historical

figure has been denied personal praise. The deeper injury lies in

teaching impressionable viewers that sacrifice is naïveté, patriotism

is material for ridicule and ignorance is entertainment.

29/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

59. The fourth estate must resist this descent. Its freedom is

indispensable, but its influence carries a corresponding moral

responsibility. It must question power without corrupting truth,

entertain without impoverishing public sensibility, and innovate

without severing the younger generation from its historical roots.

60. The remedial measures directed in this order are intended

neither to censor humour nor to compel ceremonial adulation. Their

object is to convert an episode of historical insensitivity into an

enduring educational endeavour. If ten thousand young readers

discover the life of V.O.C.; if schoolchildren speak about Swadeshi,

sacrifice and self-reliance; and if a broadcaster strengthens its

editorial conscience, the response will have achieved more than

punishment ever could.

61. A public apology does not diminish the stature of an

institution. The capacity to acknowledge an error is itself a sign of

institutional maturity. The fourth respondent, having promptly

withdrawn the objectionable material and having accepted the

30/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

restorative course suggested by this Court, is expected to implement

the directions in their true spirit.

62. The ships of the Swadeshi Steam Navigation Company may

no longer sail the waters between Thoothukudi and Colombo. Yet the

ideals they carried self-respect, courage, indigenous enterprise and

freedom from economic subjugation must continue to sail through

the minds of succeeding generations. It is the shared duty of

educational institutions, media houses, public authorities and

citizens to keep that voyage alive.

63. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of in the

above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

03.08.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

31/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

To

1. The Director General of Police (DGP)

Tamil Nadu Police,

Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore,

Chennai 600 004.

2. The Commissioner of Police

Chennai city police,

No.124, EVR Sampath salai,

Vepery, Chennai 600 007.

3. The Commissioner of Police

Madurai City Police,

Alagar Kovil Road,

Madurai 625 002.

4. The Managing Director,

Sun Group / Adithya TV Channel,

Sun TV Network limited,

Murasoli Maran Towers,

73, MRC Nagar Main road,

MRC Nagar,

Chennai 600 028.

5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

32/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.4272 of 2026

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

WP.Crl.(MD)No.4272 of 2026

03.08.2026

33/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis