By placing the blame on the state government as the facilitator of separatist forces, the petitioner wanted to cause a dismissal of the former by the Union Government. The intention of the petitioner to incite hatred towards the state government is clear from 'raising a false alarm without any basis' as if separatists are thriving in the state. The respondents including the state and the de facto complainant alleged that the conduct of the petitioner falls beyond the scope of freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).

The petitioner also added that he has been made a scapegoat by the ruling party for his firm stand against their policies. The petitioner counsel contended that the tweet was an 'agonised response of a true nationalist' in 'apprehension that separatism was rearing its ugly head in the State of Tamil Nadu'. The defacto complainant in the case is a DMK functionary who came across the said tweet. While allegedly equating Tamil Nadu with Kashmir, the petitioner had identified those celebrating former CDS Bipin Rawat's death as those belonging to 'Dravida Kazhakam' and 'Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam'. The tweet might have been taken down by Maridhas himself within two hours after realising the nature of the misstep he had made, the court observes. The latter is the product of deep reflection.' The sentimental writing is deliberate, well thought out and shaped in constant revision and self-criticism.

The naïve write spontaneously, almost without thinking, not bothering to consider the intellectual or ethical consequences of their words and paying no attention to what others might say. 'Orhan Pamuk who was awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize in literature makes a distinction between the 'naive and the sentimental novelist'. The court also made an interesting remark about how the contentious tweet of Maridhas was perceived at large by classifying the same as a 'naïve tweet' in the 'Pamukian' sense, in reference to the Nobel Literary Laureate Orhan Pamuk. The court also points out that a 'Youtuber' or any social media personality who regularly comments on public affairs has the very same rights that the journalists and media enjoy under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The first respondent by registering the impugned FIR and arresting the petitioner has infringed upon the said right', the court observed while underscoring that Vinod Dua mandates the application of Sections 124 A and 505 IPC strictly within the confines of those provisions, and that journalists are entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh Case. 'The petitioner is entitled to the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Union of India (UOI) and Ors LL 2021 SC 266, the court observed that it has been vested with the constitutional duty to not deprive Maridhas his personal liberty. State of Maharashtra (2020) and Vinod Dua vs.

The petitioner lacked the requisite intent to commit the offence he has been charged with which is also cemented by the fact that the tweet was taken down in two hours, much before it garnered publicity, the court added to the above observations. Hence, the tweet of the petitioner cannot be characterized as seditious.' In the petitioner's perspective, there has been slackness and inaction on the part of those in charge of the State government. The petitioner wanted the security situation to be overhauled and improved. The petitioner had only drawn the attention of the State government to certain nefarious tendencies brewing in the State. By no stretch of imagination can the petitioner be said to have harmed the national interests. Contrary to the submissions of the respondent complainant that the tweet have harmful repercussions, the court observed that the tweet was well-meaning and does not fall foul of Section 124 A of IPC: 'Article 51A of the Constitution states that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. Rather, it was meant to reinforce the might of state apparatus. Swaminathan observed that the tweet in question was never intended to subvert the existing government.

Subvert meaning in tamil