Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) chief coordinator S. Seeman during a press conference in Puducherry recently. File photo
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) chief coordinator S. Seeman, 58, has approached the Madras High Court with a plea to club all 50 First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against him across the State for his speech against Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) founder Thanthai Periyar alias E.V. Ramasamy.

Also read: Seeman remains defiant despite Periyarist group’s attempt to lay siege to house

The plea has been listed for admission before Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan on Tuesday (March 18, 2025). In an affidavit filed in support of his petition, Mr. Seeman said, he had delivered a speech at Vadalur in Cuddalore district on January 8, 2025 cricising Periyar and that his speech was based on facts.

However, the cadre of a particular political organisation had lodged complaints in the police stations at Erode, Madurai, Krishnagiri, Salem, Thanjavur, Tirunelveli, Virudhunagar, Krishnagiri, Thoothukudi, Perambalur, Karur, Dindigul, Pudukottai, Coimbatore, Theni, Sivaganga and many more districts.

Listing out all 50 FIRs that had been booked so far for the same speech, the petitioner said, he had received police notices under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, summoning him for inquiry, from the Vadalur, Chengalpattu and Ranipet police stations.

Further, claiming that the police had refused to divulge the details of the exact nature of the complaints that had been lodged against him, the petitioner said, those FIRs had also been blocked online making it impossible for him to access them and know their contents.

‘Speech made on facts’

“I have not made any allegation or made any disparaging remarks against any leader. The speech delivered by me is referring to facts and recalling the speeches and writings made by the particular leader in public meetings and his official organ. No imputation has been made with any malafide intention,” the petitioner said.

Claiming that mere reproduction of the speeches and writings of another person would not amount to imputation, the petitioner said: “The facts stated by me in my speech cannot be at any stretch of imagination be construed as creating a wedge among the people.”

“My intention is not to malign or defame the leader referred to in my speech. A careful analysis of the speech made by me would show that I only differed with the views expressed by the particular leader,” Mr. Seeman said and contended that registration of multiple FIRs was an abuse of process of law.

He also claimed to have made a representation to the Home Secretary as well as the DGP on February 11, 2025 to club all the FIRs registered in connection with the speech into one single FIR and appoint one investigating officer to probe into the matter impartially. However, the plea went unheard, he complained.

Placing reliance upon multiple Supreme Court verdicts on clubbing of FIRs, he sought a direction to the Home Secretary and DGP to club all the FIRs into one and appoint an officer to conduct an impartial and independent investigation. He also sought an interim direction against being summoned to different police stations.