3 min readNew DelhiSep 3, 2026 02:00 PM IST
The Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the president of a Tamil Nadu-based Hindu rights organisation who was booked for posting a video on his Twitter account showing a foreign pastor dancing with a woman, along with a caption asking Hindus to “think over” the depiction of foreign religious culture.
Justice R Vijayakumar noted that there was no allegation that the video was a deepfake and held that the caption was addressed to Hindus, not Christians. He quashed the charge sheet filed against the man and called the continuation of the case an “abuse of process of law.”
“As far as the caption is concerned, the petitioner has stated that the said video depicts the original state of foreign culture and therefore, Hindus should think it over. The alleged caption is not meant for the Christians. It is addressed to the Hindus,” the August 24 order read.
Posted video on Twitter
The man allegedly had a Twitter account where he posted a video showing a foreign Pastor dancing with a woman on June 18, 2023, at around 5 pm, along with a caption stating that it depicted the original state of foreign religious culture and calling upon all Hindus to think over it.
Finding the caption offensive, the complainant, who belongs to the Christian community, lodged a complaint with the police.
Justice R Vijayakumar pointed out that the alleged caption of the said video is not meant for the Christians but is addressed to the Hindus.
Arguments
Representing the man, senior advocate Karthikeyan argued that the alleged video was not a deepfake and that his client had uploaded the original video without using any obscene caption. He added that the complainant was a highly sensitive person and that the issue could not be viewed solely from his perspective.
On the contrary, Government Advocate V Shathurthi Raja submitted that the man had been continuously uploading such videos and argued that the video of a pastor dancing abroad with a woman, along with the caption posted, was likely to create enmity between different religious groups.
Story continues below this ad
The court also noted that the complainant did not appear either in person or through counsel and decided the case on the merits based on the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel and the Government Advocate.