Tue Aug 05 09:29:21 UTC 2025: Okay, here’s a summary of the text followed by a rewritten news article based on that summary:

**Summary:**

The Madras High Court questioned the necessity of the case against Madurai Adheenam, Harihara Gnanasambanda Desigar, who claimed a minor car accident was an assassination attempt involving Muslims. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy expressed doubt that the people of Tamil Nadu would be easily provoked by such remarks. The court reviewed CCTV footage and determined the Adheenam’s car was responsible for the accident. An FIR was filed against the Adheenam for promoting enmity and public mischief. The court granted time for the police to file a counter-affidavit to the petition to quash the FIR.
## News Article:

**Madras High Court Questions FIR Against Madurai Adheenam Over “Assassination Attempt” Claim**

**CHENNAI, August 5, 2025** – The Madras High Court has raised concerns over a First Information Report (FIR) filed against Harihara Gnanasambanda Desigar, the Madurai Adheenam, regarding his claims that a minor car accident was an assassination attempt involving Muslims.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy questioned whether the people of Tamil Nadu would be easily provoked by the Adheenam’s remarks. The FIR was registered after the Adheenam alleged the incident was a deliberate attack involving individuals wearing skull caps and sporting beards, suggesting Pakistani involvement.

The Greater Chennai City Police cyber crime wing filed the FIR under Sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to promoting enmity between groups, public mischief, and making false statements to create communal enmity.

During the hearing, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) R. Muniyapparaj strongly opposed the Adheenam’s petition to quash the FIR. The APP played CCTV footage of the accident, which convinced the judge that the Adheenam’s car had been driven rashly. Justice Chakravarthy noted that a major accident was averted due to the other driver’s actions.

“Merely because the occupants of the other car were Muslims, the petitioner appears to have escalated the issue. Are they not your brethren? Are they also not as much Indian as you are?” the judge questioned the Adheenam’s counsel, Ramaswamy Meyyappan.

The Adheenam’s counsel argued that his client’s statements were prompted by the media at a private event and did not explicitly name any religion. The APP, however, stated that the Adheenam’s remarks sparked multiple protests and warranted the registration of an FIR.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, Justice Chakravarthy suggested that police resources could be better utilized for more serious criminal cases. The court granted the police until August 14 to file a counter affidavit to the FIR quash petition. The case continues to raise questions about freedom of speech and the potential for inciting communal disharmony.

Read More